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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the returned data source and scope but does not describe operational behavior such as whether this is read-only, how mesh blocks are determined, potential response size, or any caveats about the census data.

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 a single concise sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, plus a brief pricing note. It contains no fluff, though it could arguably use a bit more explanatory detail without becoming bloated.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description names the data source, metric, and geographic scope. However, it omits what the input should actually be and gives no usage context against nearby sibling tools, so an agent may struggle to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions gnaf_id or its meaning. The phrase 'around the subject' weakly implies gnaf_id identifies the subject property, but no format, resolution instructions, or relationship to the output is explained.

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 identifies the data source (ABS Census 2021), the metric (tenure shares), and the geography (each mesh block around the subject). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' and does not mention sibling tools, but the 'around the subject' phrasing distinguishes it from suburb-level tenure 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as suburbs_demographics_tenure. It implies a property-level use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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