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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the modest facts that results are yearly averages and optionally broken down by sector or sex; it says nothing about which years exist or output shape, which is acceptable but thin given the low burden.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core measure stated first and the optional dimension second; nothing is padded. The semicolon-clause phrasing is slightly compressed but still readable.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition is workable but leaves gaps: the available year coverage and the requirement to source the activity slug from list_activities are not surfaced in the description. An agent can still call it correctly because the schema carries those constraints.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The prose paraphrase of the breakdown values ('public/private sector or men/women') adds no meaning beyond the enum and even omits the 'total' default, so it does not raise the score.

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 a specific measure (average gross monthly wage), a time dimension (by year), and the dimension of aggregation (economic activity), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_occupation_wages and get_region_wages by resource axis. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you want wage data keyed to an economic activity, optionally split by sector or sex. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives, and the dependency on list_activities for a valid slug appears only in the schema, not the description.

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