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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the data source (bulk HM Land Registry corporate and overseas ownership registers), the coverage limitation for individually owned titles, the UK-only scope, and the cost of 25 credits. These are important behavioral facts an agent would not know from the schema or annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core action and source, then adds the important coverage limitation, scope, and cost. Each sentence earns its place, and the cost and UK-only constraints are stated compactly.

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?

The description covers the key context for a reasonably complex lookup tool: source data, unresolved individual owners, UK scope, and cost. It is mostly complete given the presence of an output schema, though the unexplained `asset` parameter is a small remaining gap.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It helps explain `parcel_ids` by referencing parcels returned by `sourcing_search`, but it does not explain the `asset` parameter or when to choose between `land` and `units`.

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 states a specific action, 'Resolve registered owners', and a specific resource, parcels returned by `sourcing_search`. It distinguishes the tool's scope from general ownership lookup by tying it to `sourcing_search` outputs and by explaining which owner types the bulk registers cover.

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?

It clearly says to use this for parcels returned by `sourcing_search`, which gives a practical usage context. It also warns that individually owned titles remain unresolved and that naming an individual requires a paid per-title purchase this tool does not make, though it does not name a specific alternative tool for that paid lookup.

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