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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output metrics and does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are any side effects, rate limits, or caveats about data coverage. The description is purely about output content, not behavior, so it falls short for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence that lists the key outputs without fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main metric. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary details, so it is not a 5 – it is efficient but under-specified for complete understanding.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which may describe the return format), the description still lacks essential context. It does not clarify how the parameter should be used, when to invoke this tool over the many siblings, or any behavioral expectations. The output schema likely covers return fields, but the description does not complement it with usage or parameter details, leaving the tool contextually incomplete.

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 must compensate by explaining the suburb_name parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, nor does it provide format, examples, or constraints. The parameter is also named generically with no description in the schema, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.

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 the tool provides suburb land-value medians in $/sqm, lot size, land share of price, plus per-mesh-block $/sqm. It clearly identifies the resource (suburb land values) and the specific metrics, making its purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like suburbs_valuation_land_values or suburbs_shapes_mesh_blocks, which could overlap, so it is not a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any distinguishing conditions, such as 'use for suburb-level land value summaries' or 'for property-specific land values, use suburbs_valuation_land_values'. Without this, an agent has to infer usage from the name and sibling names, which is insufficient.

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