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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuine behavioral fact — everything is returned in a single call rather than requiring fan-out across the sibling tools — which is the most decision-relevant trait here. It says nothing about cost/latency, rate limits, caching or data freshness, which matter for a heavyweight aggregate 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the identity and scope before the usage list. Every clause earns its place — no restatement of the title, no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a single documented parameter keeps the surface small; the description covers identity, scope, and selection. What is missing is operational context for a likely expensive aggregate call — expected latency or cost, and failure behavior for invalid or non-geographic postcodes.

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?

There is one required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example and format leniency ('m11ae'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the cardinality ('one postcode') and adds no new semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is this high.

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+resource (complete UK area-intelligence report) with explicit scope: one postcode, single call. The 'HEADLINE TOOL ... complete report in a single call' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings (crime_summary, flood_warnings, house_prices), signaling that this is the aggregate rather than a partial view.

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?

Gives a clear priority directive ('Use this first') plus five concrete use cases spanning due diligence, relocation, lettings, insurance pre-screening, site selection and lead enrichment. It lacks any exclusion guidance — e.g. that an agent should prefer a narrow sibling when only one data point is needed (cheaper/faster) — so it is clear but not complete on alternatives.

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