Search Wage Determinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool returns only each WD's identifier and points to get_wage_detemination for full detail, and it clarifies date filtering as a 'dated-date window' with format YYYY-MM-DD. This is useful, though it does not mention pagination or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured: one-sentence purpose, one-sentence usage routing, a compact bullet list of parameters, and a closing note on return behavior. Each sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant guidance (when to use vs. the sibling) is front-loaded.

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?

For a 12-parameter search tool with zero schema description coverage, the description is nearly complete: it covers the search scope, filter semantics, sort options, limit, and how to use the results via get_wage_detemination. The only material gap is the undocumented offset and sort_order parameters, which are needed for full control of pagination and result ordering.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It provides concrete meaning for most parameters: type enum values, state format, country as substring, wd_nember examples, active_only semantics, date format, construction_type values, sort_by options, and limit cap. However, offset and sort_order appear in the schema but are not described, leaving an agent guessing about pagination and sort direction.

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: 'Search Davis-Bacon (DBA), Service Contract Act (SCA), and CBA wage deteminations by jurisdiction, number, or revision date.' It distinctishes this from the sibling get_wds_by_location by explicitly naming what this tool does and what it does not do. The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Bid & Proposal / Negotiate tool. For "which WDs apply where I'm bidding" use get_wds_by_location instead (the compliance shortcut); use this one when you need to browse/filter broadly or track revisions over time.' This names the alternative and states the condition that selects this tool, leaving no ambiguity.

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