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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the data nature (0-100 scale, aggregation, benchmark) which is useful, but it doesn't mention any limitations, permissions, error behavior, or response format details. It's a read operation likely, but that isn't explicitly stated. It adds some context but is not thorough.

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 sentence that front-loads the key information: what is returned, the scale, aggregation method, and benchmark. There is no wasted wording, and it is efficiently structured for quick scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format is likely covered. The description covers the core semantics of what the tool does but lacks usage guidance and parameter details. For a simple single-parameter tool, it is mostly complete, but the missing usage context and parameter explanation leave gaps that an agent might need to infer.

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 description does not explain the suburb_name parameter at all. Schema coverage is 0%, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, there's no format guidance (e.g., full name vs. abbreviation) or clarification of how it should be provided. This is a gap given the low coverage.

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 provides livability scores (0-100) per dimension, aggregated from mesh-block scores with an SA4 benchmark. It specifies the verb (provides) and resource (livability scores) and adds detail that differentiates it from the map sibling (livability_map). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the numeric score focus is evident.

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 like suburbs_lifestyle_livability_map or other lifestyle tools. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. The description is purely descriptive and leaves usage decisions entirely to the agent.

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