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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the misleading path ('/market/all' is not 'all'), the exact bundle composition (8 of 29 endpoints), and the billing implication ('priced sum-of-parts'). It does not hide that this is a subset, which is the most likely behavioral trap.

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 summary is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place: the indicator list, the scope warning, the family count, the naming caveat, and the alternatives. The bold warning makes the most important caveat visually distinct without adding length.

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 endpoint with an output schema, this description is complete: it tells the caller what is included, what is excluded, why the name is misleading, and which other tools cover the excluded data. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it 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%, and the description never mentions suburb_name, its format, or any validation caveat. The sole parameter is self-evident from the schema and tool name, but the description adds no meaning beyond those structured fields, so it does not compensate for the low schema 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 names the exact resource (the eight headline market indicators), enumerates them, and explicitly differentiates itself from the larger Suburb-Market family: 'This is a core set, not every market endpoint.' An agent can tell what it returns and how it differs from siblings like suburbs_market_median_sale_price or suburbs_market_vacancy_rate.

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?

It states when to use the bundled call and, more importantly, when not to: 'Supply, vacancy, growth drivers, affordability, mortgage stress, investor concentration, land values, repeat sales, bedroom stats and the per-mesh-block maps are separate calls.' It also flags the cost model ('priced sum-of-parts'), so an agent can choose this over individual endpoints or a full-market query.

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