Query Wage Rates Across Determinations

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond those signals: each row is one classification's hourly base wage plus fringe tied to its originating WD, CBAs have no rate table, and state filtering relies on the WD's jurisdictions. This gives an agent a clearer model of what will be returned.

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 front-loaded with the core distinction, then uses a compact bullet list for parameters. Nearly every sentence earns its place by adding scoping or routing information, and the format makes it easy for a model to parse.

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 tool has 10 optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description supplies enough context for correct tool selection and basic invocation. The main gap is the undocumented offset, sort_order, and active_only parameters, though these are relatively self-explanatory and the output schema likely fills in return-shape details.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries the burden, and it largely succeeds: it explains classification (substring, with example), type (DBA | SCA, and notes CBAs have no rate table), occupation_code (SCA 5-digit example), wd_number (exact), state (2-letter via WD jurisdictions), sort_by (allowed values), and limit (max 100). However, offset, sort_order, and active_only are left undocumented, so compensation is not complete.

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 a specific verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('prevailing-wage rates ACROSS wage determinations'), and the dimension of interest ('by occupation'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_wage_determinations / get_wds_by_location by contrasting 'what does a given trade actually pay' with 'which WDs apply.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by naming sibling tools and pointing to get_wage_rate_summary when the user needs an aggregated distribution/floor across many WDs. It also contextualizes the tool as a Bid & Proposal / Negotiate tool, which helps an agent route intent.

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