Get Wage Rates

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

Even though annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: each row is one classification's hourly base wage plus fringe tied to its WD, type is restricted to DBA or SCA with a note that CBAs have no rate table, and state filtering works through the WD's jurisdictions. This goes well beyond the annotation flags.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives sibling differentiation, then a tight bullet list of parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information and the structure makes it easy to scan quickly.

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?

The description explains row semantics, main filtering behavior, and when to prefer a sibling tool, which is strong. It leaves three optional parameters (offset, sort_order, active_only) unexplained and does not mention pagination beyond 'limit: max 100,' but the presence of an output schema and rich annotations mitigates the impact.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well for most parameters: classification is documented as a substring with an example, occupation_code as an SCA 5-digit code, wd_number as exact, type as DBA|SCA with the CBA caveat, and sort_by with valid values. However, offset, sort_order, and active_only are left undocumented, so parameter coverage is not complete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query prevailing-wage rates ACROSS wage determinations, by occupation,' and captures the core meaning with 'what does a given trade actually pay.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that answer 'which WDs apply,' so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 names two sibling tools that answer a different question and directs the agent to get_wage_rate_summary for aggregated distribution/floor across many WDs instead of paging through this tool. It also labels the tool as 'Bid & Proposal / Negotiate,' providing clear context for when it should be used.

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