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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the index is; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how invalid suburb names are handled, what the index values mean, or any other behavioral details.

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?

One short sentence with no filler or repetition. The key information, the metric and its scope, is presented directly and economically.

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 tool with an output schema present, the operational picture is mostly adequate: an agent can infer it needs a suburb name. However, the meaning of 'Microburbs affordability index' is unexplained, and the lack of usage guidance leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding among many similar market 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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the single parameter suburb_name is largely self-explanatory. The description adds slight semantic value by explaining the suburb is interpreted via its postcode area, but it provides no format examples, casing guidance, or expected input variants.

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 identifies a specific resource and metric: 'Microburbs affordability index' for a suburb's postcode area. It is clear enough to understand what data the tool provides, but it does not explicitly use a verb like 'returns' and does not differentiate itself from the many other suburbs_market_* siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suburbs_market_all, suburbs_market_mortgage_stress, or suburbs_market_yield_pct. The description implies a general affordability use case but provides no context, exclusions, or conditions for selection.

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