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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: the data source is nuvistahaven.com and unknown values are returned as null rather than guessed, which tells the agent how to interpret gaps. It does not state read-only nature, auth requirements, or what happens if the property identifier is unrecognized.

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?

Four short sentences, with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded, followed by example questions and a data-provenance caveat. Every sentence adds something, though the structure is slightly fragmented across lines.

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 return value shape needn't be described, and the null-semantics note usefully supplements it. The remaining gap is the identifier contract for the required property parameter, which nothing in the description or schema resolves.

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?

One required parameter (property) with 0% schema description coverage. The description never clarifies what form the identifier takes — a name, slug, or ID — nor how to obtain a valid value (e.g., from search_properties). The schema and description together leave the parameter's expected format undefined.

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 resource (retrieves facts about a single property) and enumerates the fact categories returned: bedrooms, sleeps, bathrooms, amenities, highlights. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_properties (listing) and check_availability (dates), though it never names a sibling 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?

The description offers example questions it answers ("does it have a hot tub?", "how many bedrooms?"), which implies usage for fact lookups rather than availability or pricing. However, it never says when NOT to use it or routes the agent to search_properties for discovery or get_quote for pricing.

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