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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'latest' temporal qualifier, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the suburb_name is invalid, whether the result is a single number or an object, or any units/format details. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('Latest median weekly rent') and the scope ('for the suburb'). It could arguably be slightly more informative, but for what it contains, it is concise and well-structured.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., a number, an object with currency and period), what 'latest' means in terms of data freshness, or how to handle invalid suburb names. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate for a basic call but leaves gaps for an agent trying to interpret the result or handle errors.

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 for the undocumented suburb_name parameter. The description mentions 'for the suburb' which implies the parameter is the suburb name, but it doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., 'Sydney' vs 'Sydney, NSW'), case sensitivity, or whether it accepts suburb IDs. With only one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more detail about what values are valid.

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 'Latest median weekly rent for the suburb' clearly states the tool's function: it returns the most recent median weekly rent for a given suburb. It uses a specific verb ('returns' implied) and resource ('median weekly rent'), and the title reinforces this. It is distinguishable from siblings like suburbs_market_median_rent_series (which implies a time series) and suburbs_market_rent_map (which implies a map), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 doesn't mention that suburbs_market_median_rent_series would be used for historical trends, or that suburbs_market_rent_map would be used for geographic comparisons. The context of 'latest' is implied but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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