Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further, disclosing the returned structure (base and fringe side by side, decision number, revision, publication date, source URL) and flagging that the total is computed:true – useful context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded and every clause carries meaning, but the content is fully duplicated across Japanese and English, roughly doubling the length for an agent that only needs one language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them and adds the crucial domain caveat that these are statutory minimums. Seven optional parameters, a clear example and a stated scope leave nothing an agent needs missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a worked example ('state=CA', county='Los Angeles', trade='carpenter') that shows how the main filters combine in practice. It does not add format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: '引く' / retrieve Davis-Bacon general wage determinations by state, county and trade. It also distinguishes this from private-market rates and contractor billing, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling pricing tools like get_jccdb_labor_rate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly frames when this applies – minimums for federally funded construction – and adds a negation ('not private market rates or contractor billing'), which is the key disambiguation for this domain. It gives a concrete example invocation, though it never names an alternative sibling to route away to.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.