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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently explains the calculation, that both raw inputs are returned for verifiability, that best/worst pockets are included, and that only values are returned. This is strong disclosure, though it does not describe every output nuance.

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?

Two dense sentences deliver the formula, scope, output contents, and a critical caveat about polygons. All information is front-loaded and every clause adds value.

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 description is complete for a single-parameter tool with an output schema: it defines the metric, formula, unit of analysis, included extras, and explicitly separates values from geometry. An agent has what it needs to call and interpret 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?

The only parameter, suburb_name, is self-explanatory and the description connects it to the containing suburb. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not add format or validation guidance beyond the parameter 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 defines the tool's output: gross rental yield per mesh block within a suburb, with the formula provided. It also distinguishes itself from shape-returning tools by stating 'Values only', and the granularity distinguishes it from suburb-level yield siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: an agent must infer this tool is for mesh-block-level yield values. No direct comparison to the many sibling yield and map tools is given, and no 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided.

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