Search Wage Determinations

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: active_only means currently-effective WDs, date filters use modified-date, construction_type is DBA-only, and the tool returns identifiers that should be passed to get_wage_determination. It does not contradict the 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 description is densely informative with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then provides a scannable parameter list and a concise note about return value usage. The bullet structure makes the parameter semantics easy for an agent 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?

For a 12-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, the description covers most operational needs: filter semantics, value constraints, date format, and downstream usage. The main gaps are the undocumented offset and sort_order parameters, which an agent may need for pagination and sorting control. Otherwise, it is strong given the output schema and read-only annotations.

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 parameter-documentation burden. It provides meaning, format, and constraints for most parameters (e.g., state format, wd_number substring examples, date format, allowed sort_by values, limit max). However, it omits offset and sort_order, which are present in the schema but undocumented.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('Davis-Bacon (DBA), Service Contract Act (SCA), and CBA wage determinations'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_wds_by_location. An agent can immediately understand what this tool searches and how it differs from nearby alternatives.

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: use get_wds_by_location for compliance-oriented location matching, and use this tool for broad browsing/filtering or revision tracking. It clearly states the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving little to inference.

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