Get Wage Determinations by Location

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

With annotations already covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds valuable behavior: statewide DBAs are included even when county is specified, there is no date filter, and rows default-sort with CBA first, which can bury DBA/SCA results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the parameter bullets make the schema easy to scan. The quoted use case and VA/Fairfax example are helpful but add some length; overall it is structured well and wastes little space.

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?

The description is complete for a current-coverage lookup: it explains scope, type filtering, sort behavior, and limit. The main gap is offset/pagination semantics and a slightly ambiguous county explanation, though the output schema reduces the need to document return shape.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains state, county, type filter values, and limit max of 100. However, offset is not mentioned, and the county note 'omit for statewide only' is somewhat ambiguous despite the earlier clarification about statewide DBAs.

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 identifies the action and resource: returns every currently-active DBA, SCA, and CBA record covering a state/county jurisdiction. It also distinguishes itself from search_wage_determinations by explicitly framing this as a current, not historical, query.

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 usage context ('I'm bidding a contract in this state/county') and names the alternative tool for historical queries, saying 'use search_wage_determinations for that.' This gives an agent clear selection criteria.

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