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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add one useful behavioral detail—'per-microburb detail'—which implies nested or granular output. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, how the categories are organized, or what the response shape will be beyond what the output schema presumably provides.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main content areas and ends with the distinguishing granularity detail. Every phrase adds information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 only one parameter, a rich sibling set, and a present output schema, the description covers the data content reasonably well. But it omits when-to-use guidance and any parameter-level detail, and the lack of explicit read-only disclosure is a gap. An agent could probably invoke it correctly, but selection among the many risk-related siblings is less certain than it should be.

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 has one parameter (suburb_name) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description never mentions suburb_name, its expected format, or any constraints, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation. It is only mildly saved by the fact that the parameter's role is inferable from the tool 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 names specific data categories (landslide/storm-tide coverage, EPA notices, landlord-insurance medians, crime benchmark) and the per-microburb granularity, which separates it from sibling risk tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so it reads more like a content label than a full functional statement.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suburbs_risks_all, suburbs_crime_breakdown, or properties_risks_landslide. The 'extras' suffix implies it complements other risk tools, but that is never stated, and no exclusions or routing cues are provided.

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