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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: data is fetched 'live' (not cached), defaults to the newest modification unless a revision is supplied, supports optional classification filtering, and returns a citable SAM.gov page.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the fetch mode and lookup axes come first, then return shape, then applicability and fallback. The CFR citation and DOL email are long tail but each carries actionable information; the single-block format is slightly heavy but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description still outlines the return payload (counties, modifications, per-classification basic rate and fringe, source page), covers the default/override behavior, and handles the missing-classification edge case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: revision defaults to the newest modification, the number format (TN20260124), and the interpretive nuance that utility-scale solar and wind farms count as Heavy. Those mappings go beyond the enum labels.

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 and resource (fetches a Davis-Bacon general wage determination) and names the live source (SAM.gov), with the two lookup axes spelled out: by number or by state/county/construction type. That level of specificity separates it from the check_* siblings that consume the data rather than fetch it.

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?

Gives real domain guidance on which determination applies ('use the determination in force when the contract was executed, 26 CFR 1.45-7(b)') and what to do when a classification is absent (email DOL). It never names an alternative sibling such as check_prevailing_wage, so tool-selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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