UK Property Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the comprehensive nature of the data returned and the address requirement, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error conditions, or what happens with invalid addresses. It provides basic operational context but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second lists data returned, third provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 complex 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly explaining the tool's comprehensive nature, data returned, and critical usage constraints. However, without output schema, some description of return format or structure would be helpful, and more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the address parameter's dual purpose (subject property identification vs. area-level data) and the postcode-only alternative, which provides important context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 performs a 'full data pull for a UK property in one call' and enumerates specific data returned (sale history, area comps, EPC rating, rental/sales market listings, rental yield calculation, price range). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is a comprehensive report vs. specialized tools like property_comps or property_yield.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: requires street address + postcode for subject property identification, while postcode-only queries should use property_comps or property_yield instead. This clearly defines when to use this tool vs. alternatives and includes exclusion criteria.

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