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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the full scope of returned data and explicitly states the 3¢ per-call price, which is an operational trait an agent needs. It does not discuss failure modes or authorization, but this is a simple read-style lookup and the output schema covers the response shape.

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 compact: one dense sentence for the core purpose and one for usage, followed by the bolded price. The hierarchy list is information-dense but necessary and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description adequately conveys the input, the full output scope, and the economic cost. It does not explain how to obtain a valid GNAF ID or what happens on an invalid ID, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema.

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 schema provides no description for gnaf_id and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description had to compensate. It clarifies that gnaf_id is a GNAF identifier and that the tool resolves it to a hierarchy, which gives the parameter some meaning beyond its name. However, it does not specify the expected format, source, or constraints on the identifier.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and names the exact output: the full ABS hierarchy from Mesh Block to State plus the admin chain of LGA, SAL, and postcode. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by framing the result as the ABS keys that other data layers index on, so an agent can tell it apart from tools like properties_context_mesh_blocks or suburbs_profile.

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?

'Call this once to get every ABS key the rest of the data layers index on' gives an explicit trigger and consolidation rule, helping an agent know when to select this tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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