suburbs_demographics_private_schoolShare of residents attending Catholic / Independent schools — suburb rollup plus the per-microburb shares behind it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "available": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "`false` on no-data responses. Omitted on success — branch on `data !== null` if you want a single discriminator.",
- "title": "Available"
- },
- "data": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "Share of residents attending Catholic / Independent schools.",
- "example": {
- "basis": "microburb_downscale",
- "growth_impact": {
- "band": "Low private-school share",
- "pct_per_year": -0.3
- },
- "microburbs": [
- {
- "mb": "10664530000",
- "private_school_pct": 5.8,
- "street": "Marquis St"
- }
- ],
- "n_microburbs": 71,
- "private_school_pct": 4.7,
- "suburb": "Belmont North"
- },
- "properties": {
- "basis": {
- "description": "How private_school_pct was derived — 'microburb_downscale' (mesh-block share rollup, preferred) or 'census_count_over_population' (suburb census student count over mesh-block population).",
- "enum": [
- "microburb_downscale",
- "census_count_over_population"
- ],
- "title": "Basis",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "growth_impact": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "Capital-growth impact associated with the share band.",
- "properties": {
- "band": {
- "description": "Plain-language name of the band the suburb landed in, suitable for display alongside the figure — e.g. 'Middle 90%', 'High unemployment', 'Low private-school share'. The wording differs per indicator; treat it as a label, not a shared enum.",
- "title": "Band",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "pct_per_year": {
- "description": "The growth difference historically associated with this band, in percentage points per year on a percent scale — `-3.8` means 3.8 percentage points a year worse, `0.5` means half a point a year better, and `0.0` (the common case, for suburbs in the middle band) means no association either way. A relative difference, not a growth rate in its own right.",
- "title": "Pct Per Year",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "pct_per_year",
- "band"
- ],
- "title": "GrowthImpact",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "microburbs": {
- "description": "Per-mesh-block private-school shares (sparse cells dropped).",
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One mesh block's private-school share.",
- "properties": {
- "mb": {
- "description": "ABS mesh-block code.",
- "title": "Mb",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "private_school_pct": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Downscaled private-school share for the mesh block.",
- "title": "Private School Pct"
- },
- "street": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Modal street name in the mesh block.",
- "title": "Street"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "mb"
- ],
- "title": "PrivateSchoolMicroburb",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Microburbs",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "n_microburbs": {
- "description": "Mesh blocks in the microburbs list.",
- "title": "N Microburbs",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "private_school_pct": {
- "description": "Share of residents attending Catholic / Independent schools, as a percentage.",
- "title": "Private School Pct",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "suburb": {
- "description": "Canonical SAL name.",
- "title": "Suburb",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "suburb",
- "private_school_pct",
- "basis",
- "growth_impact",
- "n_microburbs",
- "microburbs"
- ],
- "title": "PrivateSchool",
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The endpoint's payload, or `null` when Microburbs has no value."
- },
- "message": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Human-readable explanation. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Message"
- },
- "reason": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Machine-readable slug naming the no-data condition (e.g. `no_avm_for_GANSW704074813`). Stable per endpoint. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Reason"
- }
- },
- "title": "ApiResponse[PrivateSchool]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_PrivateSchool_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds the behavior of returning both a suburb rollup and per-microburb shares, which is useful and goes beyond the annotations. It could disclose more about the response format, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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, efficient sentence with a hyphenated supplementary detail. Every word earns its place, and the key point is front-loaded. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete in stating what it does, but it lacks details on the exact structure of the returned data (e.g., whether it's a JSON object with nested fields for the suburb and microburb shares). Given the complexity is low, a 3 is appropriate, as it is adequate but could inform the agent about the return format to enhance usability.
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. The description defines suburb_name by implying it is the suburb for which the demographics are requested, but it does not specify expected format (e.g., full name vs. abbreviation) or any constraints. Since there is only one parameter alerting the agent to it is essential, but the description provides minimal additional semantics beyond what the name suggests.
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 states the tool returns the share of residents attending Catholic/Independent schools for a suburb, which is clear. However, it does not distinguish it from other demographics tools like suburbs_demographics_all or the schools-related tools (e.g., suburbs_schools_all), so an agent may not know when to prefer this specific tool over its siblings.
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 implies usage for suburb demographics queries related to private school attendance, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does include the scope (suburb rollup plus per-microburb shares), which gives some context, but no exclusions or comparisons with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.