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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adequately explains what the tool returns: compound past growth, multiple horizons, property-type breakdown, and decimal units. It does not discuss output formatting or edge cases, but the existing output schema covers the shape.

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?

A single dense sentence conveys all essential semantics: horizons, property-type breakdown, decimal units, and the relationship to Suburb Finder rankings. There is 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?

The metric semantics are clear and an output schema exists, so an agent can understand what it gets back. However, the missing usage guidance and sparse parameter documentation leave real gaps for tool selection and correct invocation.

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 only parameter, suburb_name, has a bare string schema with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no format guidance or examples. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but an agent is not told whether to use canonical suburb names, include state suffixes, or expect case sensitivity.

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 names a clear resource and metric: past compound sale-price growth over 1/3/5/10 years, by property type, expressed as a decimal. This distinguishes it from single-horizon siblings like suburbs_market_price_growth_5y, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 for when to choose this tool over related ones such as suburbs_market_price_growth_5y or suburbs_hero_price_growth_12mo. The note about Suburb Finder rankings is a sourcing detail, not an explicit use case or alternative.

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