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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns (latest median weekly rent) but does not mention error handling, input validation, or any side effects. It also doesn't clarify whether the value is a single number or a formatted object, though an output schema exists. The description is too thin to adequately cover behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, but the brevity borders on under-specification. Still, it scores well on efficiency and clarity of structure.

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 existence of many sibling tools and a single simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not mention how this tool differs from the series variant, nor does it provide any context about data recency, units, or prerequisites. An agent cannot confidently select this tool over alternatives without additional investigation.

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. It only implies 'suburb' via the tool name and the phrase 'for the suburb', but does not explain the expected format of suburb_name (e.g., full name, exact match, case sensitivity). The description adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 specific resource ('median weekly rent') and a clear temporal scope ('latest') for a given suburb. It is not a tautology and conveys the core function. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like suburbs_market_median_rent_series, which might be the series version of the same metric.

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. Given the large number of suburbs_market_* siblings, an agent has no basis to choose this over suburbs_market_median_rent_series or suburbs_market_median_sale_price. No exclusions or selection criteria are mentioned.

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