Get Wage Rate Summary

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

Despite annotations already indicating readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the response includes distinct_classifications, a broad classification substring can blend multiple differently-paid titles, and DBA CBAs have no rate table. This goes beyond the structured metadata and helps agents interpret results correctly.

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 densely informative and well-structured with clear paragraphs and bullet-like parameter explanations. Though longer than minimal, every sentence adds functional value—no filler—and key directives like preferring occupation_code are front-loaded and reinforce the main caveat.

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 complexity, zero schema parameter documentation, and the presence of an output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters map to behavior, what distinguishes it from siblings, and an important data interpretation gotcha.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains every parameter: occupation_code as a 5-digit SCA code with examples and precedence, classification as a name substring fallback, type as SCA vs DBA with the CBA caveat, and state as a 2-letter filter. It also explains the distinct_classifications output behavior.

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 tool returns the labor-cost FLOOR for one occupation, aggregated across wage determinations, and details components (base hourly percentiles, H&W fringe, WD count). It distinguishes itself from get_wage_rates as the DISTRIBUTION view versus individual county rate lines, making sibling differentiation explicit.

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 provides explicit usage context: Bid & Proposal / Negotiate tool, the DISTRIBUTION view, distinct from get_wage_rates for individual rates, and paired with get_labor_rate_benchmark for awarded as-bid comparison. It also advises preferring occupation_code over classification when pay spread matters, giving concrete selection guidance.

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