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.