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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds one genuine behavioral nuance beyond the schema: address ids only appear 'where recorded sales exist,' meaning results are conditionally partial. It says nothing about result ordering, relevance ranking, or behavior when nothing matches.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the id format is front-loaded so the agent knows what comes back before reading the follow-up tool list. The compressed id pattern (uk:lsoa|msoa|borough:…) is dense but readable in context.

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?

Good coverage for a 2-parameter, read-only lookup: annotations carry safety, an output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and params are fully documented in the schema. The one real omission is disambiguation from the other area-search siblings (find_areas, match_areas, search_places).

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 both q and limit are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same input types (area name, ONS code, postcode, street) without adding format, matching, or precedence rules. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: resolve free text (area name, ONS code, postcode, street) to geography ids and, conditionally, address ids. That is a clear, concrete purpose. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like find_areas, match_areas, or search_places, which appear to do overlapping resolution work.

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 tells the agent what to do with results (pass ids to get_area_metric, rank_areas_by_metric, get_address_history), which implies usage but never states when to pick this tool over find_areas or match_areas. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, only downstream routing.

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