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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real context beyond annotations: it states an active HouseData API key is required and that non-entitled accounts get an error explaining how to upgrade. That is useful failure-mode disclosure. It stops short of describing latency, result shape or pagination.

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 with no filler; the core capability leads and the prerequisite follows. The opening is slightly dense with parenthetical field examples, but nothing feels wasted.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the score means, what it flags, that remediation guidance is included, and the auth prerequisite. Output structure is left unspecified, but the conceptual return content is conveyed, which is adequate here.

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 schema already documents both postcode and property_id, including the preference for property_id once known. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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 gives a concrete verb and resource — it returns a PRISM consent-gap score and states exactly what it identifies (features such as extensions, conversions and floor-area changes lacking a planning/building-control record) plus that it returns remediation paths. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, name a sibling such as get_planning_history or check_epc_compliance to sharpen the boundary.

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 implied by describing the consent-gap concept, so an agent can infer this tool is for detecting unrecorded works, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no routing against the many neighbouring get_* tools. The entitlement/API-key prerequisite is the only genuine usage constraint given.

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