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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds some behavioral value by scoping to 'published' details, implying unpublished/withdrawn listings may not be returned. It says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid id, but the annotation bar is already met.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the field inventory. No filler, no restatement of the title, everything after the colon earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to explain return values, and it correctly focuses on what the tool is for. The only gap is that it never tells the agent to call this after search_listings, which matters for a tool that cannot be invoked without an id.

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 in-schema, including the search_id/inquiry-linking rationale. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already says, so it sits at the baseline.

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+resource ('Full published details of one listing') and enumerates what is included: description, features, energy certificate, commission, offering agent, link. An agent can immediately tell this is a single-record detail fetch rather than a search or comparison. It does not name a sibling to differentiate against, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_listings or compare_listings, and no prerequisite (e.g., 'call after search_listings to get a listing_id'). The only routing hint — 'the id from search_listings' — lives in the schema, not the description. Usage is inferable from the name alone, not from the text.

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