UK Property Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: auto-escalation logic (widening search if <5 results), EPC enrichment details (adds floor area, price/sqft, EPC rating), and area-level aggregations (median price/sqft, EPC match rate). This covers important operational characteristics beyond basic functionality.

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 perfectly structured in three concise sentences: first states core purpose, second explains auto-escalation behavior, third details EPC enrichment benefits. Each sentence adds distinct value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining key behaviors and enrichment features. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure of results, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The description is mostly complete but has this one notable gap.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about auto-escalation (relating to the 'auto_escalate' parameter) and EPC enrichment (relating to 'enrich_epc'), but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.

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 states the tool's purpose: retrieving comparable property sales from Land Registry Price Paid Data. It specifies the data source and mentions key features like auto-escalation and EPC enrichment, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ppd_transactions' or 'property_report' which likely serve different functions.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'auto-escalates to wider search area' and EPC enrichment, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ppd_transactions' or 'property_epc'. It provides some operational guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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