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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: per-state layer coverage, the crucial null-means-unknown caveat, nearest-first ordering, inclusion of blocks across suburb lines, the `provenance` taxonomy (measured / measured_wider_area / estimate / not_recorded) with `how`, and the 20¢ per-call price. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 bolded lead question front-loads the purpose and the paragraphs are organized by concern (what is returned, coverage caveat, shape/ordering, provenance, price). It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; the double explanation of the mesh-block payload is slightly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the response container (`mesh_blocks`), per-entry fields (`mb_code`, `distance_m`, `population`, `dwellings`), ordering, and the provenance/`how` contract. Combined with the state-coverage caveat and pricing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it implies `gnaf_id` identifies the target property but never states the identifier format or where to obtain it. The name is largely self-explanatory, so this is adequate rather than deficient.

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 question it answers and enumerates exactly what is returned per mesh block: flood planning, flood overlay, bushfire-prone, erosion-prone, risk scores for flood/fire/coast/ground movement, and slope. It explicitly scopes results to blocks within 1,000 m of the property and routes polygon geometry to the sibling `/properties/{gnaf_id}/context/mesh-blocks`, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other `properties_mesh_blocks_*` 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?

It gives a clear condition for use (property-level hazard exposure across nearby mesh blocks) and explicitly names the alternative for the geometry case (values here, polygons from the context endpoint). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over the property-level risk siblings such as properties_risks_flood or properties_risks_bushfire, leaving that comparison to inference.

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