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

The description discloses the output format (a 0-100 score with a per-mesh-block breakdown), but with no annotations, it fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, how the score is computed, or any data caveats. It provides minimal behavioral context, and the absence of annotations leaves gaps.

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?

One concise sentence with no redundancy. The key purpose and output detail are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, the description gives a basic overview but lacks depth on the breakdown structure, the significance of the score, or how it relates to other market tools. It's adequate but not comprehensive for an agent needing to use it correctly.

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 description adds no meaningful detail to the suburb_name parameter; it merely restates 'for the suburb'. With 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't clarify the expected format, valid values, or how to obtain a valid suburb name, which is a significant gap.

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 a mortgage-stress score (0-100) for a suburb, with a per-mesh-block breakdown. It distinguishes itself from sibling market tools by naming a specific metric, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention how it differs from related tools like suburbs_market_affordability or suburbs_market_yield_pct, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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