back_wages_summary

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that computation is client-side over up to 1000 matching cases, adding transparency. However, it does not address rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if more cases exist beyond the cap.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and following with constraints. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description lists what the tool returns (aggregate totals, employees affected, penalties, case count). It is sufficient for a simple aggregation tool, though explicit output structure could be added.

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 coverage is 100% but the description adds value by explaining the dependency (at least one of employer/state required) and stating the default and range for max_cases, which are not in the schema.

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 verb 'aggregate' and the resources (back wages, employees, penalties, case count) for an employer and/or state query. It distinguishes from sibling tools that likely provide detailed records or other views.

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 specifies that at least one of employer or state is required, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but implies usage for aggregated summaries rather than detailed case retrieval.

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