Get Wage Determination

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the tool accepts both an internal SGS ID and a human-readable WD number, and it reveals that CBA records include a special contractor/union block. This helps the agent understand what the call returns and how the ID can be supplied.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core promise appears in the first sentence, the useful domain context follows, and the parameter detail is a single scannable bullet. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation 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?

Given the output schema exists (so return structure is already specified), the description is complete for a one-parameter, read-only tool. It covers what data will be returned, the accepted ID formats, and where a caller can obtain a valid ID, leaving no practical gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for documenting wd_id. It does so thoroughly: it explains the parameter accepts either an internal SGS ID or a human-readable WD number, gives realistic examples of both, and states which sibling tools provide valid input values. This is far more useful than the schema's bare string type.

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 names the exact operation and resource: 'Get one wage determination's full record' and enumerates the record's components (location array, hourly wage + fringe, CBA contractor/union block). This clearly separates it from sibling search/list tools like search_wage_determinations or get_wds_by_location, which produce collections or location-only results.

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 context by labeling the tool as for Bid & Proposal / Negotiate and by explaining that the wd_id comes from search_wage_determinations, get_wds_by_location, or get_wage_rates. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use related tools like get_wage_rates, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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