UK Property Deal Finder MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: cost (free), geographic scope (England & Wales), data provenance (Land Registry), comparison basis (district median, same property type), and a result cap (top 3). It omits how 'recent' is defined, behavior on thin-data districts, and whether an empty result is possible, which matters for a data tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence with the most decision-relevant fact ('FREE') front-loaded, followed by scope and output. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical geography placement is slightly awkward.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values; it conveys the count (top 3) and the entity (streets) but not the fields returned or how 'well below median' is scored or ranked. For a one-parameter tool this is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would want before presenting results.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter already documents the outcode format with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a validity constraint beyond the schema: districts are limited to England & Wales, which tells the agent when a supplied outcode is out of scope.

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 names a concrete resource (postcode district streets with Land Registry sales below the district median) and a concrete output shape (top 3 streets), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling deal_scan_full, though 'FREE' and 'top 3' imply a limited tier.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'FREE' and the capped 'top 3' hint that deal_scan_full exists for deeper results, but the description never says when to choose one over the other, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid outcode. No exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal useful behavior (capped at 5 districts, hard 60%-of-median filter, addresses included, PRO/subscriber context), but says nothing about read-only nature, result size, pagination, or the cost/rate profile of what is clearly a heavy analytics call.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the tier marker first and the return scope immediately after; no filler or restated field names. Every phrase (below-median, 60%, same-type, addresses, up to 5) carries 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth about what is returned, and it covers the filter rule and included fields adequately for a scan tool. It is still thin on plan gating, error behavior when districts exceed 5, and result volume.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does add one genuinely new constraint not present in the schema (the 'up to 5' district cap), which is real value beyond the array definition.

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 names a concrete retrieval resource (below-median street list) and the qualifying rule (sales under 60% of the same-type median) plus output form (addresses), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It fails to differentiate from the plain 'deal_scan' sibling despite the 'Full' suffix implying an extended variant, leaving the choice between the two unexplained.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus deal_scan or the other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'PRO' hints at a paid tier but the description never says whether that gates usage or how to fall back if the caller lacks a subscription.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'PRO.' hints at a paid/subscriber tier and the schema's access_token corroborates it, but the description never says this is a read-only lookup, how the 'top below-median' ranking is computed, or what the response contains.

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 tight fragments with no filler, and the scope/interpretation is front-loaded. The leading 'PRO.' is terse jargon but does convey a tier signal efficiently.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape (bands per postcode? distribution? ranks?) and the safety profile. Instead it stops at a one-line purpose, leaving the agent without enough context to interpret results confidently.

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 coverage is 100% — both district (outcode examples) and access_token are documented in the schema, so the description needn't compensate. It says nothing about the parameters, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource precisely — EPC bands at postcodes of a district — and adds the business meaning (low E–G bands flag refurb/value-add potential). It lacks an explicit verb and doesn't distinguish itself from the deal_scan/planning_nearby siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to deal_scan, deal_scan_full, or planning_nearby. The refurb-potential framing hints at a use case, but that is an interpretation of output rather than invocation guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'PRO' hints at a paid tier but it never states auth requirements, how 'recent' is bounded (time window, result cap), pagination, or failure behavior for non-subscribers.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The cryptic 'PRO.' abbreviation costs a little clarity for its brevity.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must do more: it says nothing about what a result contains, how far back 'recent' reaches, how the council is resolved from the postcode, or what happens on auth failure.

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 coverage is 50%: the token parameter is documented in-schema, and the description clarifies that the postcode determines the council area searched. But it never ties the PRO marker to access_token, leaving the paid-gating semantics implicit.

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?

Names a specific resource (recent planning applications), a scope (council area derived from a postcode) and a source (planning.data.gov.uk). It is clearly distinct from siblings like epc_hints or deal_scan, though the verb is implied rather than stated.

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 postcode-scoped planning context implies when to reach for this tool versus the other siblings, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of what to do when the PRO token is missing or invalid.

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