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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the polygons are clipped to the suburb boundary and area shares are computed per zoning class and parent group. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as output format, handling of invalid suburb names, and data source, so disclosure is partial rather than comprehensive.

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 compact sentence with the core subject front-loaded. Every phrase contributes meaning: the resource, the spatial operation, and the calculated shares. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema available, the tool is relatively simple. Still, the description leaves ambiguity around what 'parent-group' means and provides no usage context among many similar suburb development and zoning tools. It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient for correct selection.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never directly explains the suburb_name parameter, its expected format, or valid values. The phrase 'clipped to the suburb' implies the input, but the description does not clarify how to supply or validate the suburb identifier.

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 names a concrete resource (zoning polygons clipped to the suburb) and specifies the computed output (per-class and parent-group area shares), so an agent can infer what the tool returns. It lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast itself with sibling zoning tools, but the resource is specific enough to distinguish it from vague alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool instead of closely related siblings such as properties_development_zoning_code, suburbs_development_building_controls, or suburbs_shapes_*. The description only states what the output is, never the conditions for selecting it over alternatives.

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