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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing the billing model (charged per property answered, capped at the sum of single calls, not_covered rows free), an explicit cost of 5 credits, a geographic restriction (UK only), and the enumerated per-item outcome codes returned in input order.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the batch scope and outcome semantics; nothing is filler. Cost information is split across two sentences ('Costs 5 credits' and 'charged per property answered'), which is a minor redundancy that could momentarily read as two separate charges.

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?

An output schema exists, so return documentation is not required, yet the description still summarizes the outcome vocabulary. Geography, keying requirement, prerequisite tool chain, cost and billing cap are all covered — nothing an agent needs before invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single `uprns` parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by naming the key type and semantics (a UPRN, not an address), the array size ceiling (up to 100), and how to resolve a valid value. It stops short of clarifying integer formatting or what happens on duplicate/over-limit inputs.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: it runs `property_planning_history` for up to 100 properties in one call. It is immediately distinguishable from the single-property sibling and from the address/planning siblings in the tool list.

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?

Gives clear preconditions and routing: 'UK only', keyed on a UPRN not an address, and an explicit two-step chain (`address_autocomplete` → `address_resolve`) to obtain the key. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this batch over the single `property_planning_history` call, so the when-not is left to inference.

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