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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the result is aggregated counts rather than raw geometries or shares, but it does not state whether counts are current vs historical, how categories are defined, or whether any side effects exist. The word 'counts' strongly implies a read-only aggregation.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. Key information is front-loaded: the tool returns counts, of what, and within what scope.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for invocation. The only notable gap is selection guidance among the many risk-related siblings, but that is more of a usage-guidelines concern than a completeness one.

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 only confirms that the query is scoped to 'the suburb', without explaining accepted name formats, case sensitivity, or that values should match a canonical suburb list. For the sole required parameter, this is minimal semantic support.

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 resource ('contamination points, heritage items and erosion-prone polygons') and an aggregation action ('Counts'), with clear scope ('inside the suburb'). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like suburbs_risks_all or suburbs_risks_property_hazard_counts, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related risk tools in the sibling list. An agent must infer from the word 'counts' that this is the aggregate-count option, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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