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

With no annotations provided, the description itself carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does show that this is an autocomplete/lookup operation by the ABS SAL list and includes a per-call cost. However, it does not describe result cardinality, error behavior, or whether any side effects exist; these are left mostly to the output 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 economical: a purposeful first sentence, a fine-grained second sentence on the critical usage path, and a one-line cost note. It front-loads the most important selection-relevant information and contains no filler or misplaced schema repetition.

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 its simplicity — two params, one required, and an output schema present — the description covers the essential selection and routing information: what it matches, when to call it, and the cost. The only slight gap is the absence of an explicit statement about when the caller is given an alternative such as geocode_address, but the described use before canonical SAL endpoints is adequate.

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 input schema already documents q and state. The description primarily paraphrases the parameter semantics ('partial suburb search string' vs 'Partial suburb name') without adding details like match limiting, normalization, or state-specific behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not add beyond it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Autocomplete a partial suburb search string against the ABS SAL list.' It clarifies that the tool is a search/autocomplete helper for canonical suburb names and ties it to the /v1/suburbs/{name}/... family, which differentiates it from address geocoding and other sibling tools.

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 explicitly states the key usage: 'Use this before calling /v1/suburbs/{name}/...' because those endpoints require a canonical SAL name. This gives the agent clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or saying when not to use this, but the primary routing context is strong.

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