calc_search_rates

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not burdened with restating safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting the data is refreshed daily and the search supports wildcard keyword, exact field matching, and browsing via filters. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 three sentences, front-loads the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundant restating of parameter names or schema details.

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 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, use cases, and data freshness. It does not describe the return structure or pagination, but the schema handles parameter details. The description is complete enough for a search tool with rich schema documentation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of search modes (wildcard keyword, exact field match, filters) that maps to the keyword, search, and filter parameters, but does not elaborate on specific parameter syntax or interactions beyond what the schema already provides.

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 searches GSA CALC+ ceiling rates for federal labor categories, with specific verbs ('Search', 'Find') and a resource. It distinguishes itself by specifying the data source and contract type, and the existence of sibling tools like calc_contract_rates reinforces the specificity of this tool's scope.

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 explicit use cases ('market research, IGCEs, and competitive pricing') and describes search modes (keyword, exact field, filters). It does not explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like calc_contract_rates or calc_suggest, but the use cases make the intended context clear.

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