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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds what the return value contains (facts, status, agent, owner contact id) but does not disclose behavior for missing properties, response format details, or any other edge-case behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key return components without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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, read-only getter with no output schema or nested objects, the description conveys the essential return contents and the parameter contract through the schema. It could be slightly more explicit about the full shape of the returned property, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 propertyId is already well-documented as an exact ID from a read tool that should never be invented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource (one property) and the scope ('in full') with a specific list of included data (facts, status, agent, owner contact id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_properties (plural listings) and get_property_links (related links).

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 when to use the tool: when a single property's complete record is needed rather than a list or a link graph. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions, prerequisites, or compare against alternatives such as list_properties or get_property_links.

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