UK Property Data

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a read operation without contradiction. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: specifying that binary content is base64-encoded and clarifying URI handling for static vs. templated resources, which aids in proper tool invocation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concise, necessary details about URI types and return format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 (1 parameter, read-only annotation, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage nuances, and return behavior, and with an output schema, it doesn't need to detail return values. This suffices for the tool's complexity and structured data coverage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'uri' parameter fully documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the URI identifies the resource to read. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without significant extra parameter insight.

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 as 'Read a resource by its URI' with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('resource'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on URI-based retrieval rather than search or listing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'list_resources', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 implied usage guidance by specifying 'For static resources, provide the exact URI. For templated resources, provide the URI with template parameters filled in,' which helps understand when to use this tool for direct resource access. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use advice or named alternatives like 'list_resources' for browsing, leaving some ambiguity.

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