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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the metric but does not indicate whether this is a safe read operation, how the estimate is derived, what happens for suburbs with no data, or how current the data is. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 with no redundant phrasing and the key metric is front-loaded. It lacks additional structural elements, but that absence is better attributed to completeness than to verbosity or poor arrangement.

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?

With a single required parameter and an output schema present, the description conveys the core metric without needing to document return fields. However, it omits usage guidance and any behavioral caveats about the estimated nature of the levy, so it is only minimally complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 must compensate for documenting suburb_name, but it only says 'for the suburb', which loosely maps to the parameter without adding format, matching behavior, or valid values. The single parameter is simple, but the description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema property 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 identifies the resource (suburb) and the specific metric (median estimated annual strata levy), making the tool's subject unambiguous among the large set of suburbs_market_* siblings. It lacks an imperative verb such as 'get' or 'return', but the noun phrase is specific enough to distinguish it from other market-query tools.

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 provided for when to use this tool versus the many similar suburbs_market_* alternatives such as suburbs_market_median_rent or suburbs_market_median_sale_price. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions, so an agent must infer usage from the metric name alone.

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