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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals the output type (decimal) and the growth metric. It does not disclose behavior such as error handling, whether it returns a single value or series, or any side effects (likely none, but unstated). The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 phrase with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key metric and unit. For a simple lookup tool, this brevity is appropriate and earns a top score for conciseness.

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 large sibling set and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output structure (though an output schema exists), does not mention typical usage, and fails to differentiate among the many market metrics. An agent would struggle to decide when to use this tool without additional context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameter. It does not mention any format, naming conventions, or expected input for suburb_name. The description simply restates the metric and gives no clue about how to supply the suburb, leaving the agent to guess.

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 metric: 5-year compound sale-price growth as a decimal. It is specific about the time horizon and growth type, which distinguishes it from siblings like suburbs_hero_price_growth_12mo and suburbs_market_price_growth. The resource is implied by the tool name and parameter, but not explicitly restated, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative price growth tools such as suburbs_market_price_growth or suburbs_hero_price_growth_12mo. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or which tool is preferred for different time frames. An agent would have to infer 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.