check_property

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the kinds of results returned and implies a read-only check via 'Is ... ready' and 'Returns', but it does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect free, what permissions are required, or how missing inputs affect the result.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core question before listing the returned information. The return list is dense and could be more structured, but every phrase contributes relevant domain context.

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 nine-parameter compliance-check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives useful context about what is returned and why. It still leaves gaps around how optional inputs are handled, whether any parameters are practically required, and the exact shape or conditions of the result.

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 all nine parameters. The description adds some domain meaning by linking EPC, gas, EICR, region, and properties to the returned compliance checks and fee, but it does not clarify the roles of parameters like tenancy_start or no_gas beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly identifies a compliance-readiness check for English rental properties in the landlord database, and it lists the specific outputs (registration window, certificate validity, fee, checklist, penalties). It is specific about the regulatory context but does not sharply distinguish a verb/resource pair beyond the implied 'check property readiness'.

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?

The usage scenario is implied: use this for English rental properties before landlord registration. However, there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool statements, and no guidance on whether all inputs are optional or what happens when key dates are omitted.

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