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

The description usefully discloses the metric's computation: annualised median rent divided by median sale price. However, there are no annotations and no behavioral context such as data period, source, annualisation convention, or units, so the description carries much of the burden but only partially satisfies it.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The formula is front-loaded and directly communicates the tool's meaning, so every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the formula is a minimal but viable definition. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and usage context, especially given the large set of related suburbs_market_* tools, so some contextual completeness is missing.

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, has no schema description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter, but it does not.

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 the exact formula for gross rental yield, so an agent can infer that this tool returns the yield percentage for a suburb. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the computation and resource are clear from the formula and tool name.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suburbs_market_yield_map, suburbs_market_yield_pct_series, or suburbs_market_median_rent. The description provides no conditions, exclusions, or comparison to siblings.

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