Compare state minimum wages

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the returned fields, sorting order, highest-lowest gap, and the full-time annual pay calculation.

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?

It is a single dense but well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the core comparison purpose and followed by return fields and scope limits. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does: standard rate, tipped cash wage, tip credit, effective date, annual pay, sorting, and the gap. It is complete for an agent to call and interpret the tool.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the state-count limits and 2026-2027 date window, but does not add new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific comparative verb and resource: side-by-side minimum wages for 2 to 10 US states/DC on one date. It clearly distinguishes this multi-state comparison from the single-state get_minimum_wage sibling and from annual_income_at_minimum_wage.

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?

It gives clear usage constraints: 2 to 10 states, one date in 2026-2027, and state-level only. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state when-not to use this tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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