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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: data provenance and check dates (DOL July 2026 tables, state pages checked October 2026), inclusion of post-training-data increases, the $7.25 federal floor being applied and disclosed, and a policy of reporting unpublished indexed rates as 'not announced' rather than estimating. That is exactly the kind of trust-relevant disclosure an agent needs when citing figures.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output fields, then provenance and caveats, which is the right ordering. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing is dense and a couple of clauses (e.g., the training-data remark) could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the edge-case return ('not announced' for unpublished indexed rates). Combined with the stated date range, state-level scope, and federal-floor behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 lacks: that 'date' is the point on which the rate is in effect (not a lookup-publication date), and that state input is limited to a single US state or DC with the federal floor applied where no state law exists. It does not add syntax hints, which the schema already covers.

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 (minimum wage for one US state or DC on a given date) and enumerates the returned fields (standard hourly rate, tipped cash wage, tip credit, effective date). The explicit 'state-level only: city and county rates are not included' cleanly separates it from a broader or comparative sibling like compare_states.

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 clear context for when this applies: a single state on a date in 2026-2027, with an explicit exclusion for sub-state rates and a stated fallback behavior for missing/lower state law. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for cross-state comparison or historical/upcoming-increase lookups, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives map.

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