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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: result ordering ('newest first'), the returned attributes (price, date, type, tenure, new build) and a per-call credit cost, which matters for agent budgeting. It does not cover paging or what happens when filters are omitted.

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 source, filters, ordering, returned fields and cost all front-loaded, with no filler. The telegraphic phrasing is slightly clipped but every clause 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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, and the description does a fair job covering filters, ordering, return fields and cost. The significant gap is that with zero required parameters it never says whether at least one of postcode/town/street is needed or what an unfiltered call returns, nor how limit interacts with the ordering.

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, though the schema's own descriptions are near-empty ('string', 'number'). The description adds real meaning by framing postcode/town/street as the search axes, but says nothing about 'from', 'minPrice' or 'limit' beyond what is already in the schema.

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 specific dataset (HM Land Registry price paid) and the resource (property sales), plus the filter axes (postcode, town, street) and the returned fields. An agent can tell what it fetches without opening the schema. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling epc_search, 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no explicit routing against epc_search. The only usage signal is the '(cost: 1 credit)' note, which implies budget awareness but does not tell the agent which conditions should select this tool over the alternative.

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