AQL PropertyCheck - Gold Coast property data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviorikuha. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the data is scoped to the calling key and by noting the tool is free, which is not inferable from annotations or schema.

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 single compact sentence that lists the key returned data and the cost trait, with the title providing additional at-a-glance context. No words are wasted.

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 parameterless, read-only account-status tool, the description and annotations fully cover what an agent needs: what data it returns, that it is scoped to the caller, that it is free, and that it is safe. An output schema would help but is not critical for this simple 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 tool has zero parametersable, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The description still adds scope context ('calling key's'), which is helpful even though no input schema is needed.

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 identifies the resource (the calling key's credit/usage state) and the specific data points returned: credit balance, spend today, daily cap, and rate limits. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the account-oriented scope is distinguishable from catalogue and lookup.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus propertycheck_catalogue or propertycheck_lookup. There is no mention of prerequisites, timing, or exclusion criteria; the 'Free.' fragment adds cost context but not usage direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful content context ('Free', contents of the catalogue) but no additional behavioral disclosures such as output shape or lack of side effects.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the full scope of the tool with no filler. Every phrase carries meaning: contents, custodians, licences, attribution, pricing.

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 the zero-parameter schema and simple catalogue nature, the description is sufficiently complete. It names exactly what will be found, and while no output schema exists, the described contents cover the essential return information for an agent.

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 description has no parameter burden. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing to document and the schema confirms no inputs.

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 resource: available data blocks, custodians, licences, required attribution, and credit packs. It matches the title and makes the catalogue's purpose obvious, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns'.

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 purpose implies when to use it—when you need to know what this server sells and under which licence—but it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like propertycheck_account or propertycheck_lookup or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the one-credit cost, the refusal behavior outside the serviced area, and the fact that out-of-area requests are not charged.

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 one dense, efficient sentence that front-loads the useful output categories and then states the cost and refusal rule. It contains no filler, though splitting into a second sentence or list would improve scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the data categories a caller can expect and by disclosing the cost and out-of-area refusal behavior. Minor gaps such as return format and error details exist, but the tool remains safely callable with two documented parameters.

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 schema fully documents both parameters with bounds and 'Decimal degrees', so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context ('one point') and implies coordinates must be within the serviced area, but it does not add deeper parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.

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 title and description clearly identify a specific action ('Look up'), a specific resource ('a Gold Coast property'), and a precise scope ('one point on the Gold Coast'). The listed output categories distinguish this lookup from the account and catalogue siblings.

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: use this tool when you need any of the listed environmental, planning, transport, or catchment data for a single point in the Gold Coast serviced area. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer propertycheck_account or propertycheck_catalogue, so it does not reach a 5.

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