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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious content context: the response includes the MPRP threshold check and enquiry instructions, which the agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the identifier forms and notable response contents. No filler, though it is terse enough that it omits any usage or error nuance.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully flags what matters in the return (MPRP threshold check, enquiry path). For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/invalid-reference handling is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented (reference, slug, or URL). The description's '(e.g. P-1206) or slug' merely echoes the schema, adding no format or validation detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: retrieves full details of a single listing, identified by reference or slug. The scope 'one listing' contrasts implicitly with the list/search siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 the identifier requirement – call it when you already have a reference/slug. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_properties or list_content, and no stated failure behavior for an unknown reference.

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