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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose output format (decimal fractions) and grouping (by property type). However, it does not mention time range, data granularity, or response shape beyond the presence of an output schema.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core resource and format. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices a bit of contextual detail.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the returned data and unit format. But without annotations or mention of time range and property-type coverage, an agent is left to infer important calling context.

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 schema provides only a bare 'suburb_name' string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate by explaining what form the suburb name should take or how it maps to the returned series.

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 a specific resource (gross-rental-yield history), a distinguishing dimension (by property type), and output format (decimal fractions). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but 'history' and 'by property type' clearly differentiate it from simpler yield or map 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?

Usage context is only implied: the word 'series' and 'history' suggest this is the time-series counterpart to tools like suburbs_market_yield_pct or suburbs_market_yield_map. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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