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

Annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: data provenance, licensing, the distinction between new-lease medians and advertised rents, and the fact that answers include quarter, source line, and source 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 is appropriately sized and front-loads the source and metric before filtering behavior and caveats. It is a single dense paragraph, but every sentence contributes relevant information for selecting and interpreting the tool.

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 presence of an output schema, two well-documented optional parameters, and clear annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns, how to filter it, and what caveats apply to the data.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that suburb_group accepts part of a name, giving an example like "Brighton", and explaining that suburb_group or region narrows the answer to the relevant place.

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 and metric: Victorian rents from Homes Victoria's Rental Report, median weekly rent of new leases, lease counts, and year-on-year change for suburb groups and regions. It is more specific than the title alone, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as area_rents or rent_check.

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 explains how to narrow results with suburb_group or region, including that a partial suburb name works, which is useful usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling area_rents or rent_check, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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