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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully specifies that rates are predicted incidents per 100,000 residents per year and that the comparison is against national medians, which gives meaningful context beyond the tool name. It does not elaborate on caveats like data vintage or availability, but the read-only nature is evident from the descriptive phrasing.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core metric definition. Every phrase adds useful information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only query with an output schema present, the description sufficiently defines the metric and comparison target. An agent has enough information to select the tool and understand what the result represents.

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, but it only references 'the suburb' without explaining the expected format, aliases, or constraints of suburb_name. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name and type, and the description confirms it identifies the suburb of interest, but little additional semantic value is provided.

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's output as per-crime-type rates for a suburb compared with national medians, which distinguishes it from siblings like suburbs_crime_summary and suburbs_crime_by_mesh_block. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns,' using a noun phrase instead of a direct action statement.

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 described output implies when to use it: when an agent needs crime rates broken down by type and benchmarked against national medians. No explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives might be more appropriate for different crime queries.

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