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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of grouping transactions by building and identifying patterns like blocks being sold off. While it doesn't state permissions or limitations, the read-only nature is implicit, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Find buildings with multiple flat sales') and followed by a concise explanation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and grouping behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The output schema likely handles return value details, so the description doesn't need to explain those. Minor gap: no explicit alternative references, but overall adequately complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'flat sales' which aligns with the default property_type='F', but it doesn't add significant parameter-level meaning 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Find buildings with multiple flat sales' and elaborates by saying it 'Groups Land Registry transactions by building to identify blocks being sold off, investor exits, and bulk-buy opportunities.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like ppd_transactions (raw transaction lookup) and property_comps (comparison 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 suggestion of 'block buying opportunities' implies a use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The relationship to siblings is not mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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