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 names the metric and the property-type breakdown, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether the growth is expressed as a percentage or dollar change, nor does it describe any data caveats. This is acceptable for a simple read-only metric tool but could be more transparent.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core metric ('12-month sale-price growth') and then adds the key dimension ('by property type (house / unit)'). Every word contributes value.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the metric, the time horizon, and the result grouping. It could add a note about expecting a suburb name as input, but the parameter name and tool naming make that reasonably inferable.

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 schema has one required parameter, suburb_name, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no guidance on expected format, examples, or valid values, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 tool returns 12-month sale-price growth split by property type (house/unit), which is a specific metric and differentiates it from broader growth tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and does not directly name any sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the metric itself: use this when you need 12-month house/unit sale-price growth for a suburb. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like suburbs_market_price_growth, suburbs_market_price_growth_5y, or suburbs_market_recent_price_movement.

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