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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains what the tool returns (matched-study impact, scaled by property share) and the units, but does not disclose methodology limitations, whether values can be negative, or how the scaling is computed.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the metric and units, then lists the hazard scope and scaling method, making efficient use of space.

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 available, the description covers the key output semantics and scope. It is slightly incomplete only in lacking usage guidance and caveats about how the matched-study figures should be interpreted.

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 input schema has a single undocumented parameter, suburb_name, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter or add any detail about how it should be supplied, though the parameter itself is fairly self-explanatory.

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 names a specific metric (capital-growth impact in %/yr), lists the exact hazard types covered, and notes the scaling by affected property share. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling risk tools such as suburbs_risks_all or suburbs_risks_bushfire.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling risk tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives. The intended use must be inferred entirely from the description's content.

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