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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it specifies that certain property statuses result in 'not found', and that no private owner/contact/CRM data is included. This helps set expectations for responses and edge cases.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant words. The core action and prerequisite are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds critical limitations without excess. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

For a tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual details: what the id is, when to expect not-found, and what data is excluded. Annotations fill in the read-only and idempotent behavior. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it doesn't describe the response format, which is minor given the absence of an output schema.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that the 'id' is the public id from search_properties, adding meaning beyond the schema's pattern. However, it does not mention the 'locale' parameter or its default, leaving that undocumented. Since only one of two params is explained and the other is self-evident but still lacks clarification, a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get current public details using the public id returned by search_properties.' It specifies the resource (property) and the action (get details), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on a single property lookup, unlike search_properties which searches, or compare_properties which compares. The mention of what it does NOT return (draft/archived/sold etc.) further clarifies its scope.

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 explicit usage context: the id must come from search_properties, implying a sequential workflow. It also states conditions under which the tool returns 'not found' (draft, archived, sold, etc.), which informs when not to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide appropriately.

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