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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds meaningfully beyond them: a beta validation caveat that surfaces as 'beta: true' plus a 'beta_notice' in every response, a per-field `provenance` taxonomy (measured / measured_wider_area / estimate / not_recorded), an ordering guarantee (nearest first), inclusion of blocks across suburb lines, and an explicit price of 20¢ per call. These are exactly the cost, reliability and result-shape traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 beta warning and the core 'what's the outlook' question are front-loaded, and the price is correctly placed last. Bold labels and short paragraphs make it scannable, though the provenance taxonomy sentence is dense and could be tightened without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload itself — and it does: `mesh_blocks` entries with `mb_code`, `distance_m`, `population`, `dwellings`, per-field `provenance` and `how`, plus the beta notice. Given a single required parameter and completed annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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?

The single parameter gnaf_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate; it only implies the parameter's role through the title and the path reference '/properties/{gnaf_id}/context/mesh-blocks'. It never states the expected identifier format or where to obtain a gnaf_id, leaving the one input under-documented relative to the low coverage.

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 (modelled forecasts per mesh block within 1,000 m of a property under a given gnaf_id) and enumerates the forecast fields: owner-occupation in 2026, capital growth, rezoning chance, future building height. It also distinguishes itself from the geometry sibling by stating 'Values only — the polygons come from /properties/{gnaf_id}/context/mesh-blocks', so an agent can separate this from properties_context_mesh_blocks without opening either schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is a property-level, 1 km radius forecast lookup, and the description explicitly routes polygon needs to the context/mesh-blocks sibling. It does not explicitly contrast with suburbs_mesh_blocks_forecast or state when-not-to-use (e.g. suburb-scale queries), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance, but the conditions it does give are concrete.

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