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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive traits. The description adds that output is raw API fields and that this is a debugging tool, which is useful context but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or exactly what 'raw' entails.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse for a simple tool, though the brevity contributes to the parameter gap.

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?

With an output schema available and full annotation coverage, the description needn't explain return values. However, for a tool with a parameter that has zero schema description, the description does not compensate, leaving a gap for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single property_id parameter, and the description only implies it by saying 'for a property.' It does not explain the integer type, the default value 0, or whether the default triggers different behavior.

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?

States a specific verb ('Dump') and resource ('raw API fields for a property') plus its role as a debugging aid. It is distinguishable from the many analyze_* and get_* siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 phrase 'debugging aid' implies usage in troubleshooting, but there are no explicit when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or named alternative tools. An agent gets a hint, not firm guidance.

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