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. While it mentions what data is returned (prices, addresses, etc.), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the 'max_pages' parameter, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with 10 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope, while the second clarifies the return data. No wasted words, and the most important information (search functionality) is front-loaded.

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 search tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and return data, but lacks guidance on usage versus siblings and behavioral transparency. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely heavily on the input schema for parameter understanding.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'postcode' and implies filtering by 'sale or rent' (mapping to property_type), but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 specific action ('Search Rightmove property listings'), the resource ('for sale or rent'), and the scope ('near a postcode'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'rightmove_listing' (likely for individual listings) and other property-related tools by focusing on search functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'rightmove_listing', 'property_comps', and 'property_report', there's no indication of when this search tool is appropriate versus those other property-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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