cost_of_living

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly discloses the return content (SLCI for five household types and CPI) and indicates a read-only snapshot behavior. It does not mention data frequency or format, but for a no-parameter retrieval this is adequate.

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 sentences: first states the action, second details the return payload and gives a usage example. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, data content, and a practical use case. The only minor gap is explicit sibling differentiation, but that is not critical for a simple snapshot tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly implies no input is required.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves an AU cost-of-living snapshot with specific data (ABS SLCI for five household types plus headline CPI). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like regional_cost_of_living, but the national scope and household-type focus are implicit.

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 final sentence gives an explicit trigger scenario ('Use this when an agent is asked how much are living costs rising for retirees vs workers?'), which is clear usage guidance. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it does not reach the level of a full 5.

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