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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source, geographic scope (81 cities), aggregation method (median), time granularity (monthly), and the 5-year multiplier angle. It does not describe the output format or any refresh/limitation details, but for a zero-parameter read-only data tool these are minor omissions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core question it answers, then packs source, scope, granularity, use cases, and the sibling distinction into a single dense sentence with no filler.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and low invocation complexity, the description covers all essentials: what is computed, from which data source, at what granularity, and when to prefer it over its sibling. Nothing needed to select or call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by indicating that the tool is pre-scoped to aggregate monthly medians for 81 cities, which explains why no user-supplied parameters are needed.

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 resource and purpose: it returns how much living costs have changed over 5 years, using monthly medians for 81 cities from the MIC Retail Price Statistics Survey. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from suii_item by noting that item-level monthly data belongs to that sibling.

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?

It gives concrete consultation triggers: 'how much was it 5 years ago', 'price increases', and 'price trends'. It also names the alternative suii_item for item-level monthly data, making the routing decision explicit.

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