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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing the aggregate's contents and positioning it as the entry point in a workflow. It says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or how missing data for a property is handled, which would round it out.

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 payload then the workflow hint; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the six data points. Minor gaps remain on coverage guarantees and what to do if a section is unavailable.

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% for the single property_id parameter, and the schema already explains it is the lmk-key from search_property. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates the exact payload (EPC headline, last sale, flood risk, LPA, planning-risk score, council tax band), which cleanly separates it from single-domain siblings like get_flood_risk, get_price_history and get_epc_history.

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?

"Start here after disambiguating with search_property" gives explicit sequencing and names the prerequisite tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when full histories from get_epc_history or get_planning_history are required), so no exclusions are covered.

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