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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, and the description reinforces cost/signer details (free, keyless, nothing to sign, moves no money). It goes further than annotations by disclosing the null-on-unpublished-figure rule, source attribution with URLs and dates, and the REGEN conversion capped by governance proposal 77. The only miss is not describing response shape, which the output schema covers.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the single dense paragraph carries stylistic filler ('on this planet', 'rather than trust this server') and a redundant tail: 'Free, keyless, read-only, moves no money. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.' repeats the same facts twice.

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 zero-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers derivation, provenance, null handling, and the REGEN settlement rule — everything needed to interpret the number. It stops short of distinguishing this from adjacent tools like hour_card or board_stats, which is the remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise and instead spends its words on the returned value's semantics.

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?

States a specific resource and unit: one number in US dollars per hour representing the global value of an hour of ordinary work, plus how it is derived (ILOSTAT mean earnings weighted by employee count, divided by average weekly hours). An agent knows exactly what value comes back, which is not inferable from the bare name 'labor_unit'.

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?

Gives concrete use contexts: judge whether a packet's pay is fair before claiming it, or price work about to be posted. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. hour_card, board_stats) or state when not to use it, so routing between related pricing tools still requires inference.

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