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

Discloses traits beyond annotations: counts refresh every 6 hours, history backfill extends to 2018, it is free with no payment needed, and cites the data source and license. These are operational facts the agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the 'Call this first' directive. Remaining sentences each add distinct facts (discovery role, refresh cadence, cost, source) with no padding.

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?

Covers discovery value, filter behavior, data freshness, historical coverage, cost, and provenance – and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Type information is 'string or number' – the description notes filters are optional but does not resolve the ambiguity of accepting a number versus a name. The council hint pointing to by_council in /summary is a small, useful cross-reference beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents the match semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (NSW development applications), and dimensions (status, application type, council). Clearly distinguishes itself as a counts/aggregation tool rather than the search or get_application siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first' and explains why: it reveals the loaded dataset size, exact council names, and status/application type values accepted by the other tools. This is precise routing guidance an agent can act on.

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