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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return content beyond that – 'detailed card', 'owner links', 'enrichment status for saved properties' – which meaningfully tells the agent what comes back. It does not say what happens when neither optional identifier is supplied, which is the one real gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the two identifier modes and the payload highlights. No filler.

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 must carry return expectations, and it does name the card format, owner links and enrichment status. Missing only the behavior for the zero-argument case and roughly how much detail the card contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by mapping each parameter to a distinct meaning (property_id = saved Spur property, zpid = live listing), which clarifies the alternative paths better than the bare schema descriptions do.

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 ('Show') and resource ('one property') and distinguishes the two lookup modes: saved Spur property by property_id vs live listing by zpid. This is clearly narrower than list_saved_properties or search_properties, so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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 makes clear which identifier selects which retrieval path ('saved Spur property by property_id, or a live listing by zpid'), which is real usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, e.g. that stats belong to spur_get_property_stats or that zpids come from spur_search_properties.

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