Get Labor Rate Benchmark

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: data source (GSA CALC), what the response contains (rate_distribution, escalation, etc.), and importantly explains how `value_basis` differs from get_price_benchmark's enum. It also clarifies that escalation is a real median YoY growth, not a guessed flat 2-3% escalator.

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 dense but efficiently organized: a purpose statement, a usage note, and a bulleted parameter list with inline value explanations. Every sentence adds information, and the structure makes scanning easy.

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?

Despite the tool's 12 parameters, the description covers all of them, explains the response components, and provides the context needed to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to document return details, yet the description still summarizes key fields.

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 fully compensates by defining every parameter's meaning, allowed values, and even examples (e.g., labor_category example, min/max experience 0-60, value_basis distinct enum). It goes beyond the schema by explaining the 'SIN bridge' for naics and how `vendor` should be used.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource ('awarded labor-rate (should-cost) benchmark for a labor category, from GSA CALC'), and explicitly contrasts it with get_price_benchmark, making the tool's unique role 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('the labor-cost input for a proposal', 'Bid & Proposal / Negotiate tool') and shows how to use `vendor` with search_companies for competitor lookup. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives beyond the pairing mention, but the guidance is strong.

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