get_minimum_wage_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by noting the official MHLW data source, the time range back to FY2002, and the return structure (per-fiscal-year amount, effective date, and min/max). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise note on data availability and return content. Every sentence adds value, making it well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional params, defaults, and an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what is returned (per-year amount, effective date, min/max) and notes the data range, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. The output schema exists, so the description need not detail return fields further.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (years and prefecture). The description adds no new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema states, such as the meaning of 'fiscal years' which is already in the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 applies, as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the revision history of a prefecture's minimum wage over recent fiscal years, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_minimum_wage (likely current wage) and rank_minimum_wages (ranking), making its unique purpose evident.

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?

The description provides clear context that this tool is for historical revision data, which implies when to use it versus alternatives like get_minimum_wage. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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