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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (data, room areas, status, full page text); it does not mention error handling for bad IDs, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the inline enumeration of all seven residence IDs partially duplicates the schema's examples.

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 lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, stating the ID domain and the returned contents is sufficient; only error/edge-case behavior is left 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 both parameters are documented (id plus an enum of language codes). The description restates the ID examples already in the schema and says nothing about the language parameter, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('get'), a single resource ('one residence'), enumerates the exact valid IDs (GF1, GF2, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1), and lists what is returned, clearly separating it from the plural sibling list_residences.

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: fetch a single residence by ID. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_residences, search_pages, or get_page, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., invalid ID behavior).

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