Get property intelligence

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. It discloses the data scope and the 'open data only' approach, but does not mention potential limitations such as data freshness, coverage gaps, input requirements, or error behavior. This is a moderate level of transparency for a read-only data tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a concise list of data categories. Every word earns its place; it is highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description lists the data categories returned, which gives a good sense of the return value. It does not explain the response format or what happens with ambiguous inputs, but it is reasonably complete for a data lookup tool.

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 coverage is 67% (uprn and address have descriptions; postcode does not). The description adds 'address or UPRN' context, suggesting these are alternative identifiers, but it does not clarify the role of postcode or whether any parameter is required. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented postcode parameter.

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: retrieving 'everything known about an address or UPRN from open data alone.' It lists specific data categories (sold history, EPC, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_listing by emphasizing 'no live listing required' and 'zero scraping.'

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing open data without live listing requirements) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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