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 states only that polygons are returned, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any required input formats, or what happens for suburbs without catchments. It also does not clarify if polygons are geometric geometries or simple references.

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 with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without any redundancy.

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, the description covers the basic purpose but omits important context such as when to choose this tool over similar school-related tools, and any prerequisites like a valid suburb name. It is adequate but leaves gaps that could affect correct selection and invocation.

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% because the description does not mention the parameter 'suburb_name'. The parameter is self-explanatory from the schema, but the description adds no elaboration or constraints, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 the resource ('public-school catchment polygons') and the scope ('covering the suburb'), giving a specific verb (implied get) and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like suburbs_schools_all, but the term 'catchment' and 'public-school' narrow the meaning effectively.

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 alternatives such as suburbs_schools_all or suburbs_schools_nearby. The description does not mention exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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