mees_checker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the EPC C uplift is 'advisory only' and not yet law, and it lists the return values (compliance, can-let, cost cap, penalties). This is transparent about the tool's behavior without needing to mention destructive operations, as it is a read-only check.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no filler, and the structure efficiently communicates scope, legal status, and outputs in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 enum parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers the legal context, the test threshold, the advisory nature of the future standard, and the returned data. It could mention data sources or limitations, but for a compliance checker, the essential information is present.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters with enums and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does provide context by referencing 'domestic and non-domestic' and 'EPC E minimum', which maps to the property_type and current_epc_band parameters. However, it does not explicitly name the parameters or explain their format, leaving the agent to infer from the schema. This is adequate but not highly compensatory.

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 names the tool as a MEES check for England & Wales private rented property, with a specific verb ('check') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting the jurisdictional and regulatory scope (MEES, EPC E minimum) and the domestic/non-domestic coverage, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for MEES compliance checks on private rented property in England & Wales. It explains the primary test (EPC E minimum) and the advisory nature of the 2030 C uplift. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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