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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses pricing, the current scope limitation, and the payload-size rationale. It does not mention error behavior, exact output format, or whether sal is a name/code, but these are less critical for a simple list-by-suburb tool.

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 short and well structured: core purpose first, then scope limitation with rationale, and pricing. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's scope and call it. The main gap is that it does not clarify whether 'sal' should be a suburb name, a code, or a resolved identifier, but the schema's 'Suburb (SAL)' phrasing makes this mostly discoverable.

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 schema already documents 'sal' as required and as the suburb to list mesh blocks for. The description adds only that 'sal' is required 'for now', reinforcing the constraint without providing format or example details.

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 a specific resource ('mesh-block codes') and a clear scope ('inside a suburb'), with the required 'sal' parameter. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as mbs_profile or suburbs_shapes_mesh_blocks, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 clearly states that only suburb-scoped queries are currently supported ('sal is required for now') and explains why broader scopes are not yet available. However, it does not name alternative tools or say when to choose mbs_list over similar mesh-block/suburb tools.

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