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 discloses important behavior: it falls back to less granular local/safe-block/suburb data and costs 20 cents per call. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or response formatting, but the price and fallback logic are useful, non-trivial behavioral context beyond just a read-only assumption.

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 only two sentences and directly states the core purpose, granularity, fallback behavior, and price. It is front-loaded with the main action and keeps inevitable detail to a minimum. It could arguably be more structured, but the content is dense and all sentences earn their place.

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 tool has a simple parameter set, a known output schema, and the description covers the core data granularity and pricing. However, it lacks basic guidance about when to use this tool vs. sibling tools and does not outline prerequisites or whether the property could be missing. Given the one-parameter shape and existing output schema, it is adequate but not 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% and the description does not explicitly explain what `gnaf_id` is or how to format it. It does say the data is per-property, which hints that `gnaf_id` identifies a property, but this is weak and relies largely on the parameter name rather than the description adding meaning.

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 tool as providing a negative-gearing statistic and specifies the granularity (property-level with fallbacks to mesh-block and suburb). Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', the intended function is unambiguous and distinct from other property tools in the sibling list.

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 does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives such as `properties_valuation_all` or `properties_valuation_avm`. It hints at context through 'finest available level' and fallback behavior, but it lacks explicit guidance or exclusions, so it is hard to distinguish from the numerous sibling valuation and property tools without more.

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