housing_affordability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does list the data fields returned and sources, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the snapshot is current-only or historical, national or regional, or its update frequency. These are important for an agent interpreting the answer to the comparison question, so the description only partially fulfills the transparency burden.

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 three sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence. Every sentence adds relevant information: the output components, the use case trigger, and the data sources. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 parameterless tool, the description is complete in listing what the snapshot contains and when to use it. It lacks an explicit statement about return format or regional granularity, but the output schema is absent and the description provides a clear list of metrics. This is adequate for a straightforward read-only snapshot, though a mention of historical comparability would elevate it.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist. It adds value by describing the output metrics, which compensates for the lack of schema 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 identifies the tool's function with the verb 'Get' and a specific resource: 'AU housing affordability snapshot.' It enumerates the key output components (median dwelling price, household income, price-to-income ratio, mortgage serviceability, rent burden), which distinguishes it from general economic or housing-related sibling tools. The mention of 'Cross-sources ABS + RBA' further clarifies its scope and source.

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 provides an explicit trigger: 'Use this when an agent is asked "is Australian housing more unaffordable than it was?".' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the context, this is sufficient and better than many tools.

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