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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It transparently states the output shape (mesh-block-level share plus suburb rollup), but does not disclose units, time period, data source, or interpretation caveats. This is adequate for a simple read-only metric 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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core metric and its aggregation levels. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the metric and rollup, and the parameter is inferable. However, the lack of usage guidance and parameter clarification leaves an agent to guess when and how precisely to invoke it.

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 does not explain the `suburb_name` parameter or its expected format. The parameter's meaning is inferable from its name and the mention of 'suburb-wide', but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema detail.

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 a specific metric—rental (investor) share—and specifies its granularity: per mesh block with a suburb-wide rollup. This clearly differentiates the tool from most siblings by output content, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'calculates'.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus related market, tenure, or demographics tools. The description implies the use case but never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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