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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that the values are estimates and that results are returned at two granularities. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is a read-only lookup, nor does it mention data vintage or estimation limitations.

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 compact, front-loaded phrase carries the essential subject and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is low complexity and has an output schema, so return values do not need to be spelled out. Yet the description still omits selection context and input-format details; it is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves an agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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 needs to compensate, but it only uses the word 'suburb' indirectly and never explains or qualifies the suburb_name input. A single self-explanatory parameter name prevents a 1, but the tool description adds no real parameter-level meaning.

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 data resource—'Estimated build-year profile'—and its two output scopes ('suburb aggregate + per-mesh-block medians'). This is enough to tell it apart from many suburb-market siblings, though the missing verb ('returns/provides') keeps it from being a fully explicit statement of purpose.

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 call this tool versus alternatives such as suburbs_market_all, mbs_profile, or suburbs_shapes_mesh_blocks. The phrase implies a query by suburb, but it never states when this is the right tool or when another would be preferred.

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