prop_property_comps

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses several behavioral traits: default property/transaction filtering, the IQR trimming rule and its 4-price minimum, the hard 200-transaction cap, and slower enriched EPC output. It does not discuss rate limits or error cases, but the added behavioral context substantially exceeds the annotation.

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 tool's purpose, then organized into scannable bullets for defaults and parameter effects. Every sentence adds operational value; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields beyond what is useful.

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 9-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core defaults and behavioral nuances needed to make a correct first call. The main gaps are search_level (no explanation of accepted values or geographic scope) and address, but the default-oriented guidance and output schema make the tool usable as-is.

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?

With schema coverage at only 11%, the description compensates well by explaining property_type values, transaction_category semantics, filter_outliers behavior, limit's max, and enrich_epc's effect. It leaves search_level and address undocumented, and months is only explained in the schema, but the most consequential parameters receive meaning beyond type/default.

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 opening line 'Comparable sales from Land Registry Price Paid Data' states the tool's resource and output concisely. However, while this distinguishes it from the raw-transaction sibling prop_ppd_transactions by implication, it never explicitly names an alternative or states what it is not.

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 gives rich guidance on how to change defaults (property_type, transaction_category, filter_outliers), but no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as prop_property_blocks, prop_ppd_transactions, or prop_property_yield. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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