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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the NSI Structure of Earnings source, the four-year cadence (warning the agent not to expect annual granularity), and the default-to-latest behavior. It does not state currency, units, or geographic scope, which leaves a modest gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the measure list and source are front-loaded and the default-year rule follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers source, frequency, measures, and the default-year rule. The main remaining ambiguity is the unit/currency of the wage figures and whether the data is national only, which an agent may need.

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, including the sex enum. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: that omitting year returns the latest available survey rather than erroring, which changes how an agent should construct the call.

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 resource and measure set (gross, median and net monthly wage by occupation class) and identifies the source survey. 'By occupation class' distinguishes it from siblings get_region_wages and get_activity_wages, though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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 clause 'Without a year, the latest' gives clear guidance on how to call the tool when the optional year is omitted. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_region_wages or get_activity_wages, so alternative selection is only implied by the resource dimension.

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