wage_vs_rent_gap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (nominal wage growth, rent growth, gap, direction flag) and explains the meaning of negative values. Though it omits data update frequency or caveats, the behavior is well-specified for a simple comparison tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by output details and use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description fully covers its behavior, outputs, and interpretation. The return fields are enumerated, and the narrative context is provided, making it self-contained.

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 description adds semantic value by explaining what the tool computes and the meaning of the outputs, fully compensating for the lack 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 clearly states the tool compares ABS Wage Price Index annual growth against ABS rents-component CPI annual growth, with the explicit question 'are rents outpacing wages?'. It identifies the specific data sources and the comparative nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like real_wages or housing_affordability.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('useful for affordability narrative') and explains how to interpret the result ('when negative, real housing-cost pressure is mounting'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the 'single call' phrasing implies it replaces multiple lookups, offering context for when to use it.

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