Search Price Paid Transactions by Postcode

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, such as the explicit limit of 10 recent transactions, the returned fields, and the automatic postcode extraction from full addresses. It also discloses the England/Wales scope, enriching the agent's understanding of expected behavior.

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 three concise, information-dense sentences that front-load the core purpose, then detail outputs and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the input format, output contents, geographic scope, and data source, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema relieves the description from detailing return structure, and annotations cover safety aspects.

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 already provides a detailed description of the sole parameter, including examples and reliability notes. The tool description largely repeats this information without adding new semantic meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline for 100% schema description coverage.

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 function with a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('HM Land Registry Price Paid Index'), and distinguishes it from generic property tools by naming the exact dataset and coverage (England and Wales). It also outlines the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on how to use the tool, including geographic coverage ('Covers England and Wales only') and reliability tips ('Postcode gives the most reliable results — a full address is also accepted'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which prevents a higher score.

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