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 does well by revealing that observations are not uniformly quarterly, that older values are generally month-end while recent values can be weekly, and that values are advertised median AUD per week. This is meaningful beyond simply saying 'returns history'.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the main promise is front-loaded, then cadence/coverage caveats, then the unit of measure. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter series tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers metric, unit, cadence irregularity, and coverage caveats. It does not mention earliest dates or ordering, but the output schema and simple resource make this acceptable.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only implies the suburb context without explaining accepted formats or validation for suburb_name. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, and it 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 resource: a full median weekly-rent observation history for a suburb, and emphasizes 'history' to distinguish it from a point-in-time median rent value. It also adds useful specificity about coverage in 2024 and 2025. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like suburbs_market_median_rent or other series endpoints. The phrasing implies it is for time-series/history use, but no when-to-use, exclusion, or alternative routing is stated.

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