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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the output envelope (GeoJSON FeatureCollection) and the key per-feature attributes (boundary polygon, distance in km), which implies a read-only spatial query. It does not mention edge cases or behaviors beyond that, but for a non-mutating retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 high-density sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information — that this returns neighbouring suburbs as a GeoJSON FeatureCollection — and the attribute detail is relevant and compact.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the core output concept is covered. However, the description does not explain what the required suburb_name input means, nor does it help the agent choose between this and similar sibling tools. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps in selection context.

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 only 50%: the required suburb_name parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no input semantics and only describes output attributes, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter information.

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 what the tool returns — neighbouring suburbs as a GeoJSON FeatureCollection with boundary polygon and distance in km. It is specific enough to be distinguished from nearby siblings like suburbs_shapes_boundary and suburbs_hero_neighbours, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches'.

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 instead of alternatives such as suburbs_hero_neighbours, properties_neighbours, or suburbs_shapes_boundary. No context, prerequisite, or exclusion criteria are provided.

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