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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the scope (overhead lines only) and what data is returned, but does not mention any limitations, side effects, or response characteristics beyond the basic content. For a read-only query this is minimal but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core question ('Whether high-voltage transmission lines cross the suburb') followed by the specific data points (count, voltage class) and a key constraint (overhead lines only). No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential output but does not explain the response format or structure; however, an output schema exists (though not provided here) which would likely document the return fields. For a simple data retrieval with one parameter, the description is adequate but not rich, leaving some ambiguity about edge cases or data availability.

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 for parameter meaning. It does not mention the parameter 'suburb_name' at all, leaving the agent to infer that it is a valid suburb name. While the name is self-explanatory, no format or validation details are provided, which is insufficient given the lack of schema documentation.

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 what the tool returns: whether high-voltage transmission lines cross a suburb, how many, and the highest voltage class, with the explicit scope of overhead lines only. This distinguishes it from the property-level sibling (properties_risks_hv_power_line) and other suburbs_risks_* tools, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suburbs_risks_all or the property-specific hv power line tool. The description simply states the function without context on selection criteria or complementary tools.

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