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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first') and that median and range are computed, and the framing as 'recorded' data implies a read-only source. It does not mention data recency/lag in the Land Registry feed, coverage gaps, or whether median and range are taken over the returned page or the full postcode history.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and source, then layers ordering and aggregates. No filler or repetition.

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 structure need not be spelled out, and both parameters are fully documented. The remaining gap is substantive rather than cosmetic: without annotations the description should state that the underlying data lags and clarify whether median/range reflect the limited result set or the whole postcode.

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 both postcode and limit are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the sorting behavior not present in the schema; it says nothing extra about how limit interacts with the reported median and range.

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 specific resource (recorded residential sale prices), its authoritative source (HM Land Registry Price Paid Data) and its geographic scope (England & Wales), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from broader siblings such as area_report or full_area_intelligence, which may also surface housing figures, so it stops 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. The England & Wales restriction is an implicit exclusion (it will not work for Scotland or Northern Ireland), which gives the agent a usable boundary, but routing between this and the aggregate area tools is left to inference.

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