real_wages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (nominal wage growth, CPI annual change, computed gap) and the quarterly frequency, but omits other behavioral details such as data source freshness, units, or an explicit statement that this is a read-only operation. This is adequate but not richly 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and followed by useful context and an example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple, optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, computation method, return fields, and an example range. It does not clarify behavior when start is omitted, but the schema and example provide enough context for typical use.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, though the example usage is helpful. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's parameter documentation.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Australian real wages time series (Wage Price Index minus CPI).' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like real_cash_rate and real_savings_rate by focusing on wage-specific data and its computation method.

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 provides clear context with the 'Greg Jericho chart' reference and a practical example range (2019-Q1 to 2024-Q4) for observing post-pandemic real wages collapse. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, stopping short of a 5.

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