super_fund_real_return

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculation (net of fees minus CPI), cross-sourcing from APRA and ABS, and the specific outputs (nominal return, CPI change, real return, stance flag). This is transparent for a zero-parameter tool, though it could mention caveats like data vintage or rounding.

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 main verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: definition, typical use case, and output details. No redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by listing all return fields (nominal return, CPI annual change, real return, stance flag) and the data sources. The tool is simple (zero params) and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously) and the description correctly focuses on outputs instead. It does not need to explain parameter meanings because none exist.

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 function: 'Returns the average AU superannuation fund real return' with a specific formula (APRA fund-level performance net of fees minus ABS CPI annual change). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on superannuation versus other economic indicators, and it frames the answer to a specific question: 'is super outpacing inflation right now?'.

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 a clear use case ('Useful for retirement-planning queries') and frames when to use it via the question 'is super outpacing inflation right now?'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios when not to use this tool, so it falls 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.