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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the per-call price (20¢), the ordering (nearest first), that blocks crossing suburb lines are included, that this returns values only with polygons served by a separate context endpoint, and a full provenance taxonomy (measured / measured_wider_area / estimate / not_recorded) with the `how` field. The `measured_wider_area` caveat is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs to avoid misreading repeated SA1/postcode values as block-level facts.

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?

Front-loaded with a bold question and the core output list, then scope, then provenance semantics, then price — a sensible priority order. The provenance paragraph is long but each clause (the four label meanings, the `how` sentence, the empty-string case) carries distinct information. Slightly dense, but no filler sentences.

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 shape, and it does: a `mesh_blocks` array, nearest first, with `mb_code`, `distance_m`, `population`, `dwellings` and provenance-annotated tenure fields. Scope boundaries (1,000 m, cross-suburb inclusion, values-not-polygons) and cost are all covered, leaving nothing material an agent needs before calling.

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 0% for the single `gnaf_id` parameter, so the description must carry the load. It references the property and the `/properties/{gnaf_id}/context/mesh-blocks` path, which implies gnaf_id identifies a property, but it never states the identifier format or where to obtain it. Partial compensation for a one-parameter tool, so a middling score.

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 resource precisely — tenure shares (owned outright, mortgaged, rented), median mortgage repayment, rental listing share and rent assistance — computed per mesh block within 1,000 m of a property. That is far more specific than the title restated, and it implicitly separates this from rent-only siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling tool, so an agent must still infer the boundary with properties_mesh_blocks_rent or properties_surroundings_tenure.

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 opening question "Who owns and who rents here?" plus the 1 km scope implies the use case (local tenure composition around a specific property). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so an agent choosing between this and the suburb-level or rent-specific siblings gets no routing help from the text.

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