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

With no annotations, the description at least establishes that this is a non-mutating lookup and names the source (LGA meeting minutes) and key output dimensions. However, it does not disclose behavior such as suburb-to-LGA resolution, missing-data handling, data freshness, or access/permission requirements.

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 dense sentence with the core subject front-loaded and the field/rollup details following in a compact list. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause contributes useful information.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the return shape is covered, and the description is close to adequate for a one-parameter lookup. It is incomplete because it neither explains the suburb_name parameter nor provides usage differentiation among the many sibling development 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?

The only parameter, suburb_name, is a plain string with no schema description and is never mentioned in the tool description. The emphasis on the LGA could even create ambiguity about whether an LGA or suburb should be passed; an explicit 'pass a suburb name' with format or example is missing.

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 output: council capex/project-pipeline signals extracted from LGA meeting minutes, with stage, dollar value, location, and time horizon, plus a dollar rollup. This is more than a restatement of the tool name, though it does not explicitly contrast with closely related sibling tools like suburbs_development_applications or suburbs_development_construction_activity.

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?

No sentence tells an agent when to use this tool instead of the many related suburbs_development_* tools. The intended use is only implied by the noun phrase 'Council capex / project-pipeline signals'; there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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