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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the returned apartment details, but it does not add behavioral context such as error handling for invalid apartment numbers or localization behavior.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned content without filler.

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 simple read-only detail tool with complete schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description provides enough context by naming the returned fields. Minor gaps remain around localization and not-found behavior, but they are not critical for selecting or invoking the 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 description coverage is 100%, so both the apartment and language parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that exactly one apartment is involved and does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource as a single apartment and enumerates the detail fields returned, which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_apartments. It does not explicitly name or contrast the tool against search_availability or other siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one apartment' and the detail-oriented content list, suggesting this is for retrieving full details of a known apartment. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_apartments or search_availability.

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