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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral constraint — the record is of a 'published' listing — implying unpublished ids are not retrievable, but it does not state what happens for unknown or unpublished ids.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the id examples folded into the same clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies the essential scoping and id-format information. The only missing piece is error behavior for missing or unpublished ids.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: it identifies the single 'id' as a listing identifier and supplies concrete format examples (EXAMPLE-ES-1, ES-XXXXXXXX). It stops short of stating where such ids come from or whether other id forms are accepted.

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 and resource: fetches the full public record of a single published listing, selected by id. The phrases 'one' and 'by id' implicitly separate it from the list-oriented search_homes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it already holds a listing id, versus search_homes when it does not. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, nor any exclusion or prerequisite (e.g. requires an id obtained from search_homes).

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