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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers: it discloses the return payload shape (up to 12 photos, approximate location, public listing page) and, importantly, conditional behavior where live availability and total only appear when stay dates are supplied. It stops short of noting failure behavior for an invalid or unknown reference.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the conditional clause placed last where it reads naturally. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on return contents and conditional pricing behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around the language and guests parameters and error handling, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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 60%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns more by explaining the conditional semantics of check_in/check_out — supplying them unlocks live availability and pricing — which the schema only hints at with "(stays only)". It says nothing about the guests or language parameters, so the enrichment is partial.

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 ("Returns full details for one Domus Aedes property by reference") and enumerates the contents returned, so the agent knows this is a single-record detail lookup rather than a list. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling request_property_details, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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 "by reference" and the schema note that the ref comes from a search result, sketching a search-then-fetch flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of how this differs from request_property_details, which the agent must guess.

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