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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the value is a median, estimated, and annual, which clarifies the nature of the returned figure. It does not contradict annotations, and it adds useful detail beyond the structured metadata, though it doesn't describe output format or edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without any filler. It uses efficient wording and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 tool that returns a single numeric metric, the description provides the essential context: it's a median, estimated, annual strata levy. The annotations cover safety, and the single parameter is straightforward. However, it omits the output format (e.g., a number in dollars) and any mention of possible missing data for suburbs without strata schemes, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has a single string parameter suburb_name with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not compensate by explaining the parameter format, such as expected spelling, case sensitivity, or whether it accepts a full name or an ID. The name 'suburb_name' is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond what the schema already implies, leaving a gap for a tool with zero schema documentation.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: the median estimated annual strata levy for a suburb. It uses a specific metric (strata levy) that distinguishes it from the many other suburbs_market_* siblings like median rent or median sale price. The resource (suburb) is implied by the parameter and name, making the purpose 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 implies usage when strata levy data is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It doesn't mention, for example, that this is only for suburbs with strata data or that it's distinct from other market metrics. The context is clear but not explicit.

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