regional_cost_of_living

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data source (ABS CPI by capital city) and the output structure (city-by-city annual CPI deltas and a ranked comparison), which is more than a vague 'gives cost of living'. It stops short of describing limitations like update frequency or methodology caveats, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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 tight three-sentence structure: purpose, usage examples, and source/output. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition. Front-loading the verb and object makes scanning easy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what is returned, gives use cases, and names the data source. It does not explain the weighting methodology or list the exact eight capitals, but the core purpose is fully covered. A 4 reflects that it is nearly complete without being exhaustive.

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 the schema offers no semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the returned output will be, effectively compensating for the absence of 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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly defined resource ('AU regional cost-of-living comparison'). It elaborates with concrete content (per-capital-city CPI changes, weighted-eight-capitals average) and example questions, making it distinct from the sibling 'cost_of_living' tool which likely covers a national or less granular view.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when an agent is asked...' and provides two representative queries ('is the cost of living rising faster in Brisbane than Sydney?', 'which capital city has the worst inflation?'). This gives direct, actionable guidance for when to invoke the tool over other options.

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