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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the data is precomputed and clipped to the suburb, and that heat points are included, which is useful. However, it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how the returned geometry is structured beyond what the output schema may already define.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and puts the main content first. It earns its place, though it is so compressed that it sacrifices some helpful expansion about usage or output form.

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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It is complete enough for a basic call — provide suburb_name and optionally toggle geometry — but it leaves the caller to infer what 'noise colour regions' and 'cell-centre heat points' represent in practice and does not address the broader weather/noise decision 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 coverage is 50% because geojson is documented in the input schema while suburb_name is not supplemented by a description. The tool description only implies 'suburb' must be provided, but it does not add meaningful guidance on either parameter or how the geojson flag interacts with the 'regions' and 'heat points' mentioned.

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 identifies a specific resource ('noise colour regions', 'cell-centre heat points') and clearly relates it to the suburb, so an agent can infer it returns a noise heatmap for a suburb. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb, but it is not tautological and distinguishes itself from hazard/boundary/mesh-block siblings via the 'noise' and 'heat points' language.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what scenario it is meant for. There are many suburbs_shapes_* siblings, and nothing here says 'use this for noise/heatmap visualisation' or identifies cases where another shape tool is preferable.

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