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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the required permission scope (properties:read) and the 'Risco: read / Efeitos: Nenhum' note, but says nothing about behavior when the id is invalid or not found.

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?

Two short blocks, front-loaded with the return contents before the scope/risk metadata. The risk/effect line largely duplicates the annotations, which is the only wasted text.

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 carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by naming five concrete data categories. What is missing is failure behavior (unknown id, permission denied) and any hint about the id format, for a tool that takes exactly one required input.

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?

Only one parameter ('id') exists and schema description coverage is 0% - the schema gives type and minLength but no meaning. The description never mentions the identifier at all: it doesn't say whether it is an internal UUID, slug, or channel id, so nothing compensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource ("Detalhes de uma habitação") and enumerates the payload categories it covers: capacity, layout, cleaning status, open maintenance tickets and Airbnb link status. This is clearly distinct from list_properties, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. Usage is only implied: the enumerated fields (cleaning status, maintenance tickets, Airbnb link) hint at when an agent would fetch a single property rather than call get_housekeeping_status or list_maintenance.

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