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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavior: it returns a 404 when no forecast row exists, and explains why it doesn't fall back to suburb-wide data. It also mentions the pricing (20¢ per call). It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but those are likely global. The disclosure is helpful and non-obvious.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence lists all the metrics, the second paragraph explains the 404 behavior, and the price note is separate. There is no wasted wording; it efficiently conveys the essential 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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers purpose, behavior, and price, but leaves the parameter undefined. For a single-parameter tool, explaining the parameter would make it complete. It also doesn't mention typical use cases beyond the property context, but given the schema and clear purpose, it's adequate though not thorough.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter gnaf_id, and the description does not explain what it is or how to obtain it. It only implies it identifies the property. This is a significant gap since the agent must know what value to provide; the description should clarify that gnaf_id is the property's GNAF 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 clearly states the tool returns street-level property metrics (median price, forecasts, growth, turnover, renter share, houses/units) plus suburb-wide medians and a rank. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('the property's own street'), and distinguishes from suburb-wide tools by emphasizing the street focus and the comparison data.

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 description implies usage for a property's street and contrasts with suburb-wide figures, noting it 404s rather than falling back. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like suburbs_street_forecasts, but the context of 'the property's own street' clearly scopes when to use it. It could be stronger with explicit alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough.

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