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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it names all seven dimensions, explains the 0–100 scale, clarifies that values are per mesh block, and notes the data relationship to the suburb-level endpoint. Minor gap: 'human band' is mentioned but not explained, though the output schema likely covers it.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the core payload is front-loaded, the relationship to sibling endpoints is compact, and every sentence adds distinct value. The backtick references are precise and useful.

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?

The description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: the unit of analysis (mesh blocks), the dimensions/scales returned, and the crucial boundary that polygons are not included. With an output schema present, return-value details are already handled, so nothing important is missing.

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 only indirectly references 'the suburb' without explicitly documenting the `suburb_name` parameter's expected format or values. Since the single parameter is self-descriptive and the scope is implied, this is adequate but not strong.

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 output: seven named livability dimensions scored 0–100 per mesh block, with human bands. It distinguishes itself from the suburb-level `suburbs_lifestyle_livability` and the geometry endpoint `suburbs_shapes_mesh_blocks`, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: 'Averaging a dimension across the microburbs reproduces the suburb figure at `/lifestyle/livability`' tells the agent when to use the suburb-level sibling, and 'Values only; polygons come from `/shapes/mesh-blocks`' tells it where to get geometry. This is clear when/when-not guidance.

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