UK Property Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates SDLT, implying a read-only computation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., tax amount, breakdown). For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward calculation tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of tax calculation and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., total tax, breakdown by band), any assumptions or limitations (e.g., based on current tax rates, only for residential properties), or error cases. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters (price, additional_property, first_time_buyer, non_resident) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or calculation rules. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Calculate UK Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) for a residential property.' It specifies the verb (calculate) and resource (SDLT for residential property), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings that might calculate other taxes or SDLT for non-residential properties, though none of the listed sibling tools appear to be direct alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include property-related functions like 'property_report' or 'rental_analysis', there's no indication of how this tool fits into the broader workflow or when it should be preferred over others.

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