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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the input is user-pasted raw WD text spanning 'General Decision Number' to 'END OF GENERAL DECISION', plus a worked example of what the inputs look like. It does not restate what the annotations already say.

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?

One lead sentence states the trigger, a second states the output, and the example is appended compactly. Front-loaded and mostly waste-free, though the example is somewhat long relative to the information it conveys.

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 and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. It supplies the trigger, the input expectation and a concrete example, so an agent has everything required to select and call 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; the schema already documents the 400k limit, line-break preservation and the rowId-stability requirement. The description goes slightly beyond by showing a concrete example value for each text parameter, helping an agent recognize valid input, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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?

Specific verb (compare) plus a precisely scoped resource: two modifications of the same wage determination. The description also enumerates the output content (classifications added/removed, base/fringe changes with old and new amounts), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_wage_determination or get_wage_rates.

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 a concrete trigger ('use when the user asks what changed between two modifications of the same WD') and the precondition that both texts are pasted, with a real-world example of the two revisions. It implies the exclusion of different-WD comparisons but never names an alternative sibling tool explicitly.

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