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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false), the description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: 'This tool makes no network call' — it explains and constructs a link rather than fetching the WD, which materially changes what an agent should expect. It also describes the conditional logic keyed on wdText plus awardDate. It does not cover error/empty-result behavior, so it falls short of 5.

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 the usage trigger, then flows through behavior, conditional logic, and an example without wasted sentences. It is dense but each clause carries distinct information (no-network behavior, link construction, CFR citation, conditional path, handoff). Slightly long, but nothing is filler.

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 annotations covering safety/idempotency and a full output schema covering return values, the description supplies the remaining needed context: what the tool does, the no-network constraint, the conditional reading path, and the downstream get_wage_rates call. It is complete enough to call correctly; minor ambiguity remains around behavior when only state is supplied (the sole required param).

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: a concrete example (state="TX", county="Travis", constructionType="Highway", awardDate="2026-06-01") and the conditional relationship between wdText and awardDate that drives the modification-selection logic. The instruction to reuse the same wdText across calls ties into the rowId stability noted in the schema, adding connective value.

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?

The description names a specific resource (the Davis-Bacon general wage determination) and precisely enumerates the four things the tool does: locate/explain where the WD is, build the sam.gov link with filters, quote the 29 CFR 1.6(c) revision rules, and resolve the applicable modification from pasted wdText. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_wage_rates and compare_wd_revisions, which operate on data rather than enabling discovery.

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?

It opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when the user needs the general wage determination ... for a federally funded construction project') and clarifies the conditional path (only reads the modification table if the user pastes wdText with awardDate). It also routes to the correct follow-up tool ('Then call get_wage_rates with the pasted text'). It stops short of stating when *not* to use it relative to siblings like compare_wd_revisions.

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