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

With annotations giving readOnlyHint=false/idempotentHint=false, the description usefully explains why: refresh=true performs a live fetch from source when the stored record is over a day old, i.e. a network side effect that explains the non-read-only, non-idempotent profile. It also discloses that contact data is 'as published', that features carry evidence, that identity resolution has a confidence value, and that rent/value figures are 'labelled as estimates'. No contradiction with the annotation profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary payload ('Everything Realty.Bingo holds on one property or listing'), then a compact colon-list of returned content, then the refresh clause. No filler sentences, though the dense inline list is slightly harder to scan than separated clauses.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by enumerating the response contents. The remaining gap is the zero-required-parameter situation: it never states what happens without property_id/listing_id or whether both may be passed together, which is a meaningful ambiguity for an agent.

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 only 33% (only refresh is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does add real semantics: property_id and listing_id are alternative lookup keys for the same tool, and it restates the refresh trigger with the 24-hour threshold. It stops short of explaining the rrp_/rrl_ ID formats or what happens when both or neither ID is supplied.

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 names a concrete lookup target (one property by property_id or one listing by listing_id) and enumerates exactly what is returned — attributes, listings, contact, features, identity confidence, changes, estimates. That is far more specific than a generic get_details. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as get_property_history (which also touches 'recent changes') or search_properties.

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?

Usage is only implied: supply a property_id or listing_id to retrieve a single record. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_properties when the ID is unknown, no explicit when-not condition, and no statement about which sibling to use for history versus full details.

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