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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete error condition (unpublished records fail closed), which is genuine value, but 'public provenance' and 'official handoff route' are undefined jargon that conveys little actionable 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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. It avoids padding, though the back half is spent on opaque phrases rather than useful detail.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the access condition and failure mode but leaves the return shape and the meaning of 'provenance'/'handoff route' unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the description says nothing about property_id — no format, source, or meaning. The enum does constrain the allowed values in the schema, but the description adds no semantics for the single required parameter.

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 and resource ('Read a published customer property record') and scopes it to the published subset. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_availability or resolve_customer_route, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'published' qualifier and the note that unpublished records 'fail closed' imply the precondition for a successful call, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus a sibling or guidance on what to do when the record is unpublished.

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