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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output value but does not explain error handling (e.g., invalid suburb), data freshness, or any limitations. Although an output schema exists (not shown), other behavioral aspects are undocumented.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized and wastes no words, though it might benefit from a brief note on alternatives or behavioural caveats.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. It states the essential function but lacks caveats about data availability, time periods, or how 'latest' is defined. For a simple metric tool it is sufficient, but it does not help an agent understand nuances.

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 should elaborate on the parameter. The parameter name 'suburb_name' is self-explanatory, but the description does not add any additional context, such as expected format (e.g., capitalisation) or validation rules, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's name.

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 states the tool returns the latest median sale price for a suburb. It names the resource (suburb) and the metric (median sale price) unambiguously. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like suburbs_market_median_sale_price_series, which could confuse an agent needing a single value vs a series.

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 such as the series version for historical trends, or median rent for rental metrics. It does not mention exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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