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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-known. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying the input source (user-supplied UUID or output from search_properties) and indicates the tool returns full public details. It does not mention edge cases like invalid UUIDs or language default behavior, but it adds genuine value beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the trigger condition ('Use this when...') and the resource type. Every part earns its place, and it doesn't restate the field schema or annotations.

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 this is a simple read-only lookup with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and a clear output schema exists, the description covers the key usage context: when to call it and what input to pass. Minor gaps such as the absence of the output format explanations are covered by the output schema, so overall the context is complete enough. A small deduction for not explicitly mentioning that the language parameter defaults to Spanish in the description, but this is in the schema.

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 50%: property_id has a description, but language's enum and default are structured only. The description adds context that property_id is a 'public EPK property UUID' supplied by the user or search_properties output, reinforcing the schema. Language parameter meaning is implicit but not problematic given the enum/default; the description doesn't repeat structured details and adds a bit of extra context.

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 states a specific verb with resource and context: 'get public property' when the user supplies a UUID or wants full public details for a search result. It also clearly distinguishes from sibling search_properties by saying this tool is for full public details for results returned by that search. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly related to the title.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user supplies a public EPK property UUID or wants full public details for a result returned by search_properties.' This provides concrete when-to-use guidance and implies the alternative (search_properties) is not the right tool when you already have a UUID. It is clear and actionable, even without an explicit when-not-to-use clause.

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