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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (the admin chain) but does not mention error handling, idempotency, or whether it requires exact matches. The description adds context about the output structure but lacks details on failure modes or side effects, which are minimal for a read-only lookup.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides a relevant usage hint. No filler words, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence 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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and how to obtain a valid input. It doesn't mention error cases, but those are often covered by the output schema or standard behavior. The pointer to the list endpoint is a valuable addition that covers the main potential pitfall (invalid suburb names).

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains that suburb_name should be a canonical SAL name by pointing to /v1/suburbs/list for discovery. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's bare string type, though it could be more explicit about the required format.

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 states the tool returns the suburb's upward ABS administrative chain (LGA, SA2/3/4, GCCSA, state, postcode), which is specific and distinguishes it from other suburb tools that focus on demographics, market data, etc. The verb 'return' is implicit but the resource and outcome are 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?

It provides a direct pointer to /v1/suburbs/list for discovering canonical SAL names, implying this tool expects a canonical suburb name. This gives clear guidance on how to obtain a valid input. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like lga_profile or sa4_profile, though the unique purpose makes it inferable.

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