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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the paid-access prerequisite, that enriched data costs one property credit unless `enrich=false`, and that owner contacts consume separate people credits. These are the operational side effects that justify the conservative non-read-only/destructive flags, so the description adds real value rather than repeating structured data.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the identity and required parameter, then defaults, prerequisites, and costs. Nothing is redundant.

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 stating what is returned by default (owners with names, phones, emails). For a 4-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, the prerequisites, defaults, and cost model make it complete enough to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds credit-level meaning to `enrich` and `contact_audience` ('zero people credits', 'one property credit') that the schema only hints at. The `fields` parameter is left to the schema.

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 and resource ('Returns one property by DealMachine property ID'), and the singular 'one property ... by ID' implicitly separates it from the sibling listing/search tools (property_search, property_get_many). It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear context: call it with a DealMachine property ID, add `contact_audience=none` for property-only data, and use `enrich=false` to avoid credits. It does not say when to prefer property_search or property_get_many over this, so the routing guidance is partial.

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