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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively reveals non-obvious behaviors: default filtering to residential standard sales, exclusion of bulk transfers and commercial units unless opted in, and auto-escalation when fewer than 5 results are found. These details substantially help an agent understand side effects and defaults, though it does not cover all aspects like error behavior or output format.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded: the opening sentence states the purpose, and the next two sentences summarize key behaviors. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 high schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain every parameter or return field. It captures the essential context—data source, default filters, and escalation behavior—which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It falls short only in not mentioning edge behaviors like address-based percentile ranking, but those are well-documented in the schema.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so per the rubric the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra semantic value—it repeats the transaction_category and auto_escalate defaults already captured in the schema. It does not provide new meaning beyond what structured fields already offer.

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 returns comparable property sales from Land Registry Price Paid Data, immediately conveying its core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ppd_transactions by focusing on 'comparable' sales rather than raw transaction data, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 some implied usage context—it's for property comps, and it mentions default behavior like excluding bulk transfers and auto-escalation. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance or exclusions, so an agent must infer when to prefer this over ppd_transactions or property_report.

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