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

The description discloses the data scope (last 24 months), the dwellings split, and granularity (mesh block plus rollup). With no annotations, it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only or describe error/edge behavior, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a data query.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key data, no filler. Slightly under-specified but appropriately compact.

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 data content and grouping are mostly covered. Missing explicit linkage of suburb_name to the output and guidance about how the rollup rows are represented make it only minimally complete.

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% and the description never mentions suburb_name, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema property name. The name and the tool prefix imply the suburb context, but the description leaves this implicit.

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 resource ('new dwellings ... per mesh block plus a rollup') and a time window, which distinguishes it from generic suburbs_development_all or suburbs_development_profile siblings. It lacks an explicit verb, so the action is implied rather than stated.

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 statement of when to use this tool or which sibling to prefer; among many suburbs_development_* tools an agent must infer. There are no alternative names or exclusion conditions.

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