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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context by explaining the provenance labels (`measured`, `measured_wider_area`, `estimate`, `not_recorded`) and the `how` sentence, which tells the agent how much to trust repeated or modeled values. It does not cover pagination, empty results, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with a clear question and a compact field summary, then documents the response shape and provenance. Every paragraph serves a purpose, though the first sentence is dense and the provenance explanation is lengthy. It is well structured and free of filler.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what is returned, how entries are keyed by `mb_code`, and how values should be interpreted via provenance. The main remaining gap is the unresolved `suburb_name` format and the lack of sibling-tool routing. Given the annotations and simple schema, it is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage. The description refers to 'the suburb' but does not explain the expected format, casing, ambiguity handling, or whether the name must be geocoded first. With one obvious parameter the gap is limited, but the description adds essentially no semantic 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 states a specific resource and scope: building characteristics for every mesh block in a suburb, including property counts, dwelling mix, bedrooms, bathrooms, size, height, and construction. It clearly distinguishes the values from the polygon data by pointing to `/shapes/mesh-blocks`. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling mesh-block tools such as `suburbs_mesh_blocks_tenure`, `suburbs_mesh_blocks_condition`, or `suburbs_market_built_year`.

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 by the scope: use it when you need per-mesh-block building values for a suburb, and use the shapes endpoint when you need polygons. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternative building-related tools among the many siblings. The polygon alternative is the one concrete usage distinction provided.

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