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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output granularity (mesh block plus suburb rollup) but gives no details on what 'construction change' means, what time range is covered, whether results are estimates with confidence limits, or how frequently the satellite data is updated. The read-only nature is left entirely to inference.

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 one-sentence description is efficient, front-loaded with the key differentiator ('satellite-detected'), and contains no filler. It earns its place by stating both the granularity and the rollup.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core subject and aggregation. However, it omits parameter format guidance and fails to define 'construction change' or the data vintage, leaving an agent to infer suitability from the output schema or by calling the endpoint.

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?

The single required parameter, suburb_name, has 0% schema description coverage)Skip, and the description does not compensate. It says 'plus a suburb rollup', which weakly implies the input is a suburb, but it does not explain accepted naming format, examples, or constraints. An agent must guess whether to pass 'Sydney', 'Sydney NSW', or an encoded suburb ID.

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 resource ('satellite-detected construction change'), the granularity ('per mesh block'), and the aggregation ('plus a suburb rollup'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suburbs_development_applications or suburbs_development_supply. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets', but the subject and scope 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many related suburbs_development_* tools. The qualifier 'satellite-detected' is a partial hint, but the description never states exclusions, alternatives, or the intended use case.

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