Get WDs By Location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: only currently-active records, no date filter, statewide DBAs included regardless of county, and the default sort order that can bury DBA/SCA under CBA. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 longer than average, but every section earns its place: use case, jurisdiction semantics, type-filter rationale, and limit. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and uses bullets for scannability. The VA/Fairfax example is concrete and illustrates exactly why the type filter matters.

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 5-parameter schema and existing output schema, the description covers the main use case, required state, optional county/type/limit semantics, and the sibling alternative for historical queries. The main gaps are the undocumented `offset` parameter and a slight ambiguity in 'omit for statewide only.' Overall it is nearly complete but not flawless.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers state (2-letter, required), county (optional, omit for statewide only), type (DBA/SCA/CBA with a sorting rationale), and limit (max 100). However, `offset` is never described and pagination is not explained, leaving a real usability gap for agents trying to retrieve more than one page.

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 leads with a concrete use case and states exactly what the tool does: 'Returns every currently-active DBA, SCA, and CBA record covering that jurisdiction.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling search_wage_determinations by explicitly saying this is not a historical query. That makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly defines when to use it: bidding a contract in a state/county and needing applicable wage determinations. It also names the alternative for historical queries ('use search_wage_determinations for that'). The parameter bullets add guidance on when to omit county and when to use the type filter.

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