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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the metric type ('median days on market') and scope ('current listings'), which is meaningful, but it does not mention whether the result is a single value or series, how 'current' is defined, or any data caveats. For a simple read-only metric, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. The key metric ('median days on market') and scope ('current listings') are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 one simple parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for a basic call. However, it does not disambiguate from the very similar benchmark sibling or clarify the suburb_name input format, leaving the agent to guess in an ambiguous sibling context.

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 adds no information about suburb_name beyond what the property name already implies. It does not explain expected format, whether full names or IDs are accepted, or how the parameter maps to the result. Because coverage is low, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 clearly identifies the metric: median days on market for current listings. It names the resource domain (current listings) and the output concept, but lacks a verb and does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling suburbs_market_days_on_market_benchmark.

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 description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as suburbs_market_days_on_market_benchmark or suburbs_market_stock_on_market. Usage must be inferred solely from the noun phrase, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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