get_property_sales

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data returned but lacks behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the fields. Front-loaded and 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 simplicity (1 param) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and returned fields. Could additionally mention error cases or usage notes, but it is largely complete for a straightforward 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 100% with the uprn parameter described as 'Unique Property Reference Number'. The description adds that the sale history is for a property linked to uprn but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema's description.

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 returns sale history for a property, listing specific fields (sale date, price, transaction type, category). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full HM Land Registry sale history'), distinguishing it from siblings that return current property details or comparables.

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 obtaining sale history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_property' or 'get_comparables'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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