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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool counts recent development applications but does not disclose what 'recent' means (time window), whether the count is filtered by status, or what the output format looks like. The output schema exists but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place with no filler, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, it lacks critical context: what 'recent' means, whether the count is a total or grouped, and how it relates to sibling tools like suburbs_development_da_list. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify the semantics of the count.

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%, and the description only mentions 'suburb' without elaborating on the suburb_name parameter format, case sensitivity, or accepted values. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare property name. With a single required parameter, the description should at least clarify what form the suburb name should take.

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 'Count of recent development applications in the suburb' clearly identifies the verb (count), resource (development applications), and scope (suburb, recent). It distinguishes itself from siblings like suburbs_development_da_list (which likely returns the list) and suburbs_development_all, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for getting a count rather than a list, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer it over suburbs_development_da_list or suburbs_development_applications. An agent would have to infer the distinction from the name and description.

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