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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state the approximate radius and ranking basis. However, it doesn't reveal ranking direction, how many schools are returned, data source, or whether results are based on current/catchment data. It doesn't contradict anything; it just stays thin.

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 core content is a single front-loaded sentence, with the price as a separate callout. No filler or repetition. It's slightly thin, but as a compact definition it is well structured.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential result concept and price. It is incomplete in not explaining gnaf_id or usage context, but it's a minimal viable description for a simple endpoint.

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 only parameter, gnaf_id, is not explained at all in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The name may be conventional, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it doesn't compensate.

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 exact object (schools within ~5km of a property) and the operation/output (ranked by NAPLAN/socioeconomic score). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling schools endpoints: 'all' and 'nearby' don't imply ranking.

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?

No statement about when to choose this over properties_schools_all or properties_schools_nearby, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The use case is only implied by the description, not explained.

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