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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful non-obvious context by stating that output includes both a summary and individual buy/sell pairs, with a max 500 cap. However, it does not disclose time period, ordering, data source, or how 'realised resale growth' is computed.

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 front-loads the core output type and the 500-pair limit. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a basic call. However, it leaves out temporal scope, the definition of 'realised resale growth', and how this differs from adjacent market and sales tools, which an agent would need for confident tool selection.

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 is suburb_name, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning about the parameter, such as accepted name format, whether it must match a canonical suburb list, or relationship to the output. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 that the tool returns realized resale growth as both a summary and individual buy/sell pairs, capped at 500. This distinguishes it from related price-growth tools by emphasizing repeat-sale pairs. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource and output content are unambiguous.

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 alternatives such as suburbs_market_price_growth, suburbs_market_recent_price_movement, or suburbs_sales_recent. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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