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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the metric, geography, and time horizon, which is adequate for a simple read-only summary tool. However, it does not disclose caveats such as property type inclusions, date conventions, or how 'last 3 years' is calculated.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core metrics and time window. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool is simple, has one required parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage routing and parameter format details, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between this and several similar market/sales tools.

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, but it only adds that the string parameter refers to a suburb. It does not clarify expected suburb name format, case sensitivity, or whether a state/region suffix is required. The description adds minimal meaning beyond 'suburb_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 clearly identifies the exact metrics returned: number of sales and median sold price, scoped to a suburb over the last 3 years. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like suburbs_sales_recent or suburbs_market_median_sale_price, but the intended purpose is 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suburbs_market_transaction_volume, suburbs_market_median_sale_price, or suburbs_sales_recent. The name and description imply a summary use case, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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