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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns specific metrics (median/average rent, listing count, rent range), performs optional yield calculation, and has the auto-escalation feature for sparse data. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, but covers the core operational behavior adequately.

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 sentences: first states the core purpose, second lists outputs, third describes the auto-escalation behavior. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and its key behavioral feature (auto-escalation). However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about return format/structure. The description is complete enough given the schema does parameter documentation well.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about 'auto-escalates search radius if local listings are sparse' which relates to the auto_escalate parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Rental market analysis for a UK postcode' with specific outputs (median/average rent, listing count, rent range, optional yield calculation). It distinguishes itself from siblings like property_yield or property_comps by focusing specifically on rental market data rather than property transactions or valuations.

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 for when to use this tool (UK postcode rental analysis) and mentions the auto-escalation feature for thin markets. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the differentiation is implied through its specialized focus.

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