Search Price Paid Transactions by Postcode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the tool returns up to 10 recent transactions and covers only England and Wales, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 four sentences, all front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output scope, geographic coverage, and input advice. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, input requirements, output summary, and limitations (10 results, England and Wales). Annotations provide safety and idempotency info, making this complete for typical usage.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter. The tool description reinforces that postcode is most reliable and that a full address works, adding practical guidance beyond the schema's type and length constraints.

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 searches HM Land Registry Price Paid Index by postcode or address, and specifies the output fields (price, date, address, property type, tenure) and geographic scope (England and Wales). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with charities, companies, or other data.

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 advises using a postcode for most reliable results and notes that a full address is accepted with automatic extraction. While it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the usage domain clear. A slight gap is the lack of mention of result limits or data freshness.

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