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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the result is a 1-year forecast with three scenarios, but it does not mention whether this is read-only, what data or period it is based on, or any limitations, leaving important behavioral traits unstated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with parenthetical output details; every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the core meaning. However, given the large sibling set and no annotation coverage, it is incomplete without usage guidance or differentiation from similar growth and forecast 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the suburb_name parameter, such as expected format or examples. The parameter's self-explanatory name prevents a lower score, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states the resource: a 1-year sale-price growth forecast, and enumerates the output scenarios (low / most-likely / high). It is specific about the time horizon, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling price-growth tools.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus the many price-growth and forecast siblings. There are no context cues, exclusions, or alternative tool references, so an agent must infer the appropriate use case from the tool name alone.

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