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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait beyond the schema: the price ('15¢ per call'), which is genuinely useful for an agent weighing cost. However, it does not describe the output shape, edge cases (e.g., parcels with no council valuation), or any failure behavior. The data scope is listed well, but behavioral disclosure beyond cost is 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the cost is cleanly separated in the second. Every clause adds value — the series range, the derived metrics, and the pricing are all useful and none are redundant.

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 covers the data returned and the cost. However, it lacks guidance on where gnaf_id comes from and how this differs from the five other valuation siblings. The price disclosure is a nice addition, but the missing parameter routing and sibling differentiation keep it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented gnaf_id parameter. It does not: nothing explains the format, source (e.g., obtained via geocode_address), or validation of gnaf_id. The phrase 'for the parcel' only weakly implies gnaf_id identifies the parcel. With zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

States a specific resource ('Council land valuations for the parcel') and enumerates the exact data series returned (val_2021..val_2025, YoY change, $/sqm, lot area, zoning description). The 'val_2021..val_2025 series' and 'Council land valuations' clearly distinguish this from sibling valuation tools like properties_valuation_avm and properties_valuation_value_series.

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?

'Council land valuations' implies this returns official/rateable land values for a specific parcel, which contrasts with market/AVM siblings. However, no alternative tools are named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance among the five valuation siblings (avm, all, value_series, agent_quoting, negative_gearing).

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