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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned attributes, but says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent field_id or any error/permission context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the returned-field list is compact though presented as a slightly cryptic comma-separated run.

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 single-record fetch with an annotated safety profile and no output schema, the field enumeration does useful work. However, the undocumented identifier parameter and the absence of sibling differentiation leave visible gaps.

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%, so the single parameter field_id is undocumented in the schema. The description only implies 'one field' is identified somehow and adds no detail on the identifier's form, valid range, or behavior on invalid input.

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 pair (details for one field) and enumerates what is returned (address, surface, size, prices, hours, operator). It implicitly contrasts with search_fields by retrieving a single field, though it never names that sibling.

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: 'one field' suggests this is the lookup-by-id tool rather than the search tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of get_availability or search_fields.

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