Get Wage Determination

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the structure of the returned record (location array, classifications, fringe, CBA detail block). It does not mention response size or pagination, but the output schema handles return format details.

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 concise (two short paragraphs and a bullet), front-loads the tool's purpose, and includes a helpful parameter note. The tag 'Bid & Proposal / Negotiate tool' adds a small amount of context but is not necessary; there is some minor redundancy, yet overall it is 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 has a single, well-documented parameter and an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: what the tool returns, the ID formats accepted, and the sources for those IDs. No critical information is missing for an agent to use it properly.

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 schema provides no description and coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden. It explains that wd_id accepts either an internal sgs id ('43309') or a human-readable WD number ('AK20260001'), and lists the three source tools where these IDs can be obtained. This is thorough, explicit parameter documentation.

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 'Get one wage determination's full record' and enumerates exactly what that includes (location array, each classification's hourly wage + fringe, and CBA contractor/union block). It distinguishes itself from sibling search/list tools like search_wage_determinations or get_wage_rate_summary by focusing on a single full record.

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 labels the tool as 'Bid & Proposal / Negotiate' and lists the source tools that produce valid wd_id values, which implies a workflow (search first, then retrieve full record). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_wage_rate_summary or when not to use it. Guidance is implied, not explicit.

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