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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety baseline is covered; the description goes well beyond that by stating it creates no request and books no appointment, that permissions/GEO are rechecked, and that a project summary is not a selectable apartment. It also names concrete prohibited behaviors (collecting contact or card details, claiming a request was sent, reserving or charging a deposit) that an agent could otherwise plausibly get wrong on a booking-adjacent tool.

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 fallback status and the core action are front-loaded, and the prohibitions are batched after it. It is dense and runs long with a string of negative constraints, though each constraint guards against a distinct realistic misuse, so almost nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description only needs to point at the key return value, which it does via 'offer the returned requestUrl'. Usage, safety, and handoff to the user are all covered; the only material omission for a two-required-UUID tool is the meaning of catalogId and locale.

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 burden. It gives useful meaning for 'id' by tying it to a 'previously returned individual property reference' and clarifies that a project summary is not a valid target, but it never explains catalogId versus id or what locale ('lt'/'en') controls — a real gap for a tool with two required UUIDs.

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 — 'get the official authenticated viewing-request form' — and immediately scopes it to 'one exact previously returned individual property reference'. It also names the sibling it is not (open_findestate_enquiry) and labels itself a legacy fallback, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to prefer open_findestate_enquiry for the no-login guest form, which implicitly defines when this tool is the right choice: when the authenticated FindEstate form is acceptable. It also describes the downstream flow (offer the requestUrl, user signs in and sends), which is usable routing guidance rather than a bare 'use this for viewings'.

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