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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: data source (HM Land Registry Price Paid), currency (GBP), EPC floor area where matched, absence of per-sale GBP/m2, and precise link behavior (listingLinks open Rightmove/Zoopla/OnTheMarket, links only, no fetching or hosting of listings).

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and data source, followed by key clarifications about data type and link behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which handles return values) and rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description completes the picture by covering data provenance, limitations, and link semantics. An agent has all needed context to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only reiterates 'one address id' without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource: returns recorded achieved sale prices for one address id. It clearly distinguishes the data from valuations or asking prices, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool it replaces or complements.

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 clear context for use: for a single address id, and explicitly excludes valuations or asking prices. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or specify when to choose a different sibling for related tasks.

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