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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain result ordering, pagination, how the limit parameter interacts with results, or any constraints on combining filters. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 two short sentences with illustrative examples. It front-loads the core function and then adds practical usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema and 100% schema description coverage, the description is largely complete for tool selection and invocation. It adds usage examples and filter-grouping context. It could mention that at least one search criterion is needed, but this is not a critical omission given the schema's optional-parameter default of null.

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?

The input schema already documents all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping these parameters into search modes: postcode, address, date range, and price. This helps the agent understand which parameters to use together, which the schema descriptions do not convey as directly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Land Registry transactions by postcode, address, date range, or price.' The verb 'search' plus the resource 'Land Registry transactions' is specific, and the examples further clarify the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rightmove_search and property_* tools which target other data sources or analysis.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use for specific property history... or filtered market queries...' This gives clear context on when to employ the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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