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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the data source ('listing history'), the output composition (bedroom band plus 10-year series), and the cost ('15¢ per call'). However, it does not mention rate limits, access requirements, or any caveats about how the series is computed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence conveys the full semantic content, and the second cleanly separates the pricing fact. Every word earns its place.

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, so the description doesn't need to explain return fields. It covers the core data, the source, and the cost. Still, it is missing explicit parameter semantics and usage guidance, which leaves an agent without clear conditions for invocation.

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 0%, and the single required parameter gnaf_id has no documented format. The description indirectly implies that gnaf_id identifies 'the subject' and its suburb, but it never explicitly names the parameter or explains what a GNAF ID is or how to format it. It provides partial compensation but not enough for full confidence.

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 concrete output resource: the subject's bedroom band derived from listing history plus the suburb's 10-year price series for that band. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'returns', but the intent is clear and the tool is distinguishable from sibling context tools by its specific data content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as properties_sale_history, properties_context_mesh_blocks, or suburbs_market_median_sale_price_series. The description states what it returns but not when it is useful or when it should not be used.

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