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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'real public' qualifier and the exact-match requirement, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, or other behavioral traits. Since annotations carry the main behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and lists the return fields efficiently. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly. No critical information about invocation 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 for the single parameter is 100% with a clear description ('property numeric ID or slug returned by search_hns_properties or search_properties'). The description adds only the word 'exact,' which subtly reinforces the requirement but does not significantly extend the schema's meaning.

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 ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('one real public HOUSE N STARS property listing'), and the method ('by exact numeric ID or exact slug'). It also enumerates the returned details, distinguishing it clearly from sibling search tools like search_hns_properties.

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 implies usage conditions by requiring an 'exact numeric ID or exact slug,' signaling that the tool is for fetching a known listing rather than discovering one. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving room for inference.

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