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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does at least imply a read-only, aggregate data lookup by listing output metrics. It does not disclose aggregation period, exact suburb-name matching behavior, or edge cases, but these are not clearly critical for a single-parameter statistics endpoint.

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 very short, front-loaded, and contains no filler; every listed item adds a distinct metric. It reads as a noun-phrase fragment rather than a complete sentence, but it is still efficient enough for a stats-summary endpoint.

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-required-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main output themes and the bedroom-count grouping. It does not spell out the exact meaning of suburb_name or usage boundaries, but this is a low-complexity endpoint and the output schema can fill in return details.

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 property suburb_name has no description, and the tool description never mentions or clarifies that parameter. It focuses only on output content rather than the meaning of the required input, so the agent is left to infer from the tool name alone.

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 concrete metrics, house/unit price, sales volume, median bath/car/land, and stock mix, with a clear grouping: per bedroom count. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from most market siblings, though it relies on the tool name for the 'suburb' subject and omits a verb.

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 phrase 'per bedroom count' implies this is the tool for bedroom-bucketed market stats, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it instead of related tools such as suburbs_market_transaction_volume or suburbs_market_median_sale_price. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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