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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds substantive context beyond annotations: all figures are observed rather than forecast, and each carries period, source, licence, and limits.

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 front-loads the resource and indicator list, then adds the forecast caveat and geography behavior. The long enumeration is justified by the tool's broad scope, though it is somewhat dense.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. It supplies the indicator scope, the no-forecast caveat, and the optional geography behavior; the main remaining gap is explicit sibling routing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds useful semantics by saying geography narrows the answer to figures for one place and giving examples such as NSW, Australia, and Sydney.

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 names the resource and enumerates the indicator families covered, making the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from rent-focused siblings such as area_rents, rent_check, or vic_rents, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states that figures are observed only and not forecasts, and explains that geography narrows results to one place. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools or exclusions, so usage is implied rather than routed.

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