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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns comparable suburbs in the same SA3) and output type (canonical SAL names), which is useful. However, it omits any details on how 'comparable' is determined, ordering, error cases, or data limitations. The minimal disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise (single phrase) and front-loaded with the key qualifier 'Same-SA3'. While it avoids verbosity, the terse structure omits essential context such as the explicit input-output relationship and any usage guidance, making it less effective than a structured sentence.

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?

Given the single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It provides the core concept and output format, but lacks context on when to choose this tool over siblings and does not explain the criteria for 'comparable'. The minimal nature leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It implies suburb_name is the reference suburb for finding comparables via 'Same-SA3', but does not explicitly state that the parameter represents the base suburb or explain any format constraints. This leaves ambiguity about how the parameter should be used.

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 states a clear purpose: returning comparable-suburb candidates within the same SA3, with output as canonical SAL names. This distinguishes it from generic 'similar suburbs' tools and provides a specific resource and scope. However, it is terse and could explicitly mention the input suburb as the reference point.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like suburbs_similar or other market comparison tools. The description does not mention any exclusions or specific conditions that would select this tool over siblings, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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