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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: 15-credit cost, UK-only scope, and detailed semantics of returned fields (`ml_primary`/`imputed` are predictions, `eligible_as_primary: false` marks context only, AVM back-series is scaled not corroborated). It honors the read-only/idempotent annotations without contradicting them and discloses cautionary behavior an agent must respect.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the caveats about field provenance are grouped, though the block is dense with many distinct caveats in sequence. Each sentence carries real meaning, but the density slightly taxes readability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still supplies the interpretive semantics (provenance labels, eligible_as_primary meaning), plus cost, scope, and prerequisite workflow. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required `uprn` param is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by stating the tool is 'Keyed on a UPRN, not an address' and explaining how to obtain one via address_autocomplete/address_resolve, which materially clarifies an otherwise opaque integer parameter.

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 (reconcile) and resource (cross-source property facts with provenance and unresolved attributes), so an agent knows it merges facts across sources rather than just fetching one. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-siblings like property_summary, property_report, or property_lookup, which would have earned a 5.

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 concrete usage direction: review floor area/bedrooms/tenure with the user before a valuation, and an explicit prerequisite workflow (call free `address_autocomplete` to narrow, then `address_resolve` to get a UPRN). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct routing statement against other property-report siblings.

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