Market statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does add useful context about data sources (Land Registry + live listings), which hints at reliability and recency. However, it does not disclose limitations such as geographic coverage, update frequency, or whether a session or resolved location is required, leaving some uncertainty.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Area-level market stats') and then lists specific metrics. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool returns (a list of metrics) and its data sources. It does not explain how to specify location or property kinds, but those are partially inferable from the schema. For a relatively simple stats tool, it covers most necessary context.

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 low (33%), and the description provides no additional explanation for location or propertyKinds. It implicitly maps transactionType to metrics (e.g., rental yields to 'rent', prices to 'sale'), but does not explicitly clarify parameter usage. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies the tool as providing area-level market statistics with a specific set of metrics (asking vs achieved prices, £/sqft distribution, rental yields, time on market). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listing and search_listings, which focus on individual listings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making the action implicit rather than explicit.

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 usage for area-level market analysis through its content, suggesting when an agent might need aggregated stats. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_listings or find_comparables, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is only implicit through the listed metrics.

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