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

With no annotations, the description needs to carry the full burden. It discloses that results are predicted medians and includes a verdict, which is useful, but it does not state read-only behavior, input matching rules, or how the verdict is computed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence conveys scope, units, and output shape without wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential output and units. It falls slightly short only in not addressing how this relates to sibling crime tools.

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 for the single suburb_name parameter. It mentions 'Suburb' but does not explicitly explain that suburb_name identifies the suburb to summarize or specify format/exactness.

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 identifies a specific data product: suburb and national total-crime medians with a national-comparison verdict, including units. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name sibling crime tools, but the resource and output are unambiguous.

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 word 'summary' and the national-comparison verdict imply this is the high-level crime tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over suburbs_crime_breakdown or suburbs_crime_by_mesh_block.

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