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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: draft/archived/sold/removed/unknown properties return not found, and no private data is exposed. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and id source are front-loaded, followed by edge-case behavior and data restrictions. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the essential behavior needed to call the tool correctly: id source, not-found cases, and data scope. With no output schema, it could specify the returned fields more explicitly, but for a simple read operation with strong annotations, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It adds meaning for the 'id' parameter by specifying it is the public id returned by search_properties, but it does not mention the 'locale' parameter at all. Partial compensation only.

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 states a specific action ('Get current public details') and resource ('property identified by public id'), and explicitly ties the id to search_properties. It also clarifies what is NOT returned (private data), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool — after search_properties has returned a public id. It also signals when it is not suitable (private owner/contact/CRM data). It doesn't explicitly contrast with compare_properties or get_area_statistics, but the context makes the primary use case clear.

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