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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides meaningful methodological detail: data sources, starting year, index base, and the comparison method. It does not describe the output format or update cadence, but the key calculation behavior is transparent.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core user question, then packs in sources, method, and target use cases. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, data sources, methodology, and typical asks. It does not detail the exact response format, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity and the clarity of the description.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The schema is fully complete at 100% coverage, and the description adds contextual meaning about what the no-parameter request will answer.

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 is a specific, question-led explanation: it compares the cash wage index from the Monthly Labour Survey with retail price item ratios over years, explicitly targeting real-wage questions. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling price/cost tools.

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: 'for consultations about real wages, whether life got easier, or whether salaries rose, use this.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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