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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: include_images fetches and embeds photos/floorplans as MCP content, max_images caps photos, and floorplans are always included. This meaningfully informs the agent of side effects.

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?

Each clause earns its place. The opening sentence establishes scope, then each subsequent sentence nails down an input format or an image behavior, with the critical constraint front-loaded. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

The input side is well covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what a 'full detail' response contains. An agent can likely interpret the result at runtime, but the definition would be more complete with at least a few expected fields or return-format hints.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description fully explains all three parameters: property_id format and constraints, include_images image-embedding behavior, and max_images cap with floorplan inclusion. This is exactly the compensation needed when the schema carries no semantics.

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 opens with 'Full detail for a single Rightmove listing', clearly identifying a specific resource and retrieval intent. It implies a distinction from prop_rightmove_search, though it does not use a direct verb like 'retrieves'.

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 gives clear operational guidance: the property ID is numeric, max 12 digits, full URLs are rejected, and image behavior is controlled by include_images and max_images. It does not explicitly name 'prop_rightmove_search' as the alternative for listings, but 'single listing' makes the appropriate use case apparent.

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