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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals pagination behavior (unpaged by default), data volume (1.4 MB for Point Cook), flat pricing, and that 'total' reports the count. It doesn't explicitly state read-only, but the nature of forecasts implies non-mutation. It adds value beyond what a schema would convey, though it stops short of discussing error handling or auth.

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 extremely concise, with two short paragraphs. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed immediately by practical pagination guidance. There is zero waste; every sentence earns its place, using a concrete example to illustrate size rather than abstract warnings.

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 tool has only 3 parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential points: purpose, pagination defaults, size expectations, and total count. It lacks explicit error handling or return format details, but the output schema likely covers the return structure. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without further research.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for limit and offset, including defaults and meanings. The description reinforces usage by referencing limit/offset and 'total', but adds no new semantic meaning to the parameters themselves. Suburb_name is implied from context ('every street in the suburb'), but the description doesn't explicitly define it. With 67% schema coverage, the description provides marginal extra value, mostly through pagination context rather than parameter-level detail.

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 tool provides 2/4/8-year price forecasts for every street in a suburb, anchored to the real sold median. This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like suburbs_forecast_sale which operate at the suburb level. The mention of 'every street' makes its scope 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?

It gives clear context on when to use pagination: 'Unpaged by default' and advises passing limit/offset for large suburbs, with a concrete example (Point Cook with 943 streets). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the purpose is distinct enough to imply its use case.

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