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 established. The description adds that this is a public record and shows where the id can come from, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination. With annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, includes the key usage context, and lists the important return fields without 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?

For a simple read-only get-by-id tool with one required parameter, the description is complete. It explains how to obtain the id, what the response contains (description, amenities, images, permit number, availability, tour URL), and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers return value expectations.

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 input schema fully documents the single required 'id' parameter with format uuid. The description adds practical value beyond the schema by explaining that the id comes from search_rentals or a listing URL, which helps the agent source the parameter correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the exact resource ('full public record for one A-du Rent listing'), and identifies the lookup key ('by its id'). It also enumerates the return contents, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from search_rentals.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after search_rentals when the user wants detail on a specific unit.' It names the related sibling search_rentals, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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