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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: a draft has no quality score yet (a caveat about what may be missing), and it requires the user's Cotlet API key with access to the app, which is important auth context.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by usage and caveats. Sentences earn their place, though the long field enumeration is slightly list-heavy; overall efficient and well-ordered.

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 compensates by enumerating returned fields, notes the draft caveat, and states the auth requirement. It is largely complete for a read tool, missing only explicit mention of the error case when the listing is not found or how the permit number behaves when absent.

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% with a single required listing_id parameter that the schema already documents as coming 'from list_listings.' The description does not add format, syntax, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single Property Finder listing) and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, location, specs, price, images, permit number, quality score). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_listings and update_listing, since it retrieves the full record for one listing.

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?

Provides a concrete use case — 'Use it to see why a quality score is low before you change anything' — which implies the when-to-use and positions it ahead of update_listing. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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