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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it discloses the result cap ('up to five'), the ranking mechanism (word/substring matches in questions, aliases and answers), and that answers come with official sources and checked dates. It omits what happens on zero matches and whether the lookup is purely read-only, but the core behavioral picture is present.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the domain and examples front-loaded and the return contract second. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 low-complexity, read-style lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, ranking and provenance adequately. The main gap is the no-result behavior and any hint about answer freshness limits, though 'checked dates' partially addresses the latter.

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 100%, so both query and lang are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect signal — mentioning Chinese substring matching hints at the multilingual lang option but never names it or explains the en/zh/both tradeoff. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and subject domain ('Answer everyday questions about living in or visiting Melbourne and Victoria') and backs it with concrete topic examples (myki, parking signs, rental bonds), so the agent knows exactly the kind of query it serves. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling about_melbsi, which is the one plausible source of confusion.

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 enumerated topic list gives a clear sense of the query domain and implies when to route here rather than to the business-rules or events siblings. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for cases like legal advice or non-Victorian questions, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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