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

The annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, nondestructive, and closed-world. The description adds single-listing scope and a workflow dependency on search_properties, but no further context about missing identifiers, errors, permissions, or data freshness.

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?

One front-loaded sentence communicates the use case, resource scope, and prerequisite without filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple one-parameter retrieval tool.

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?

Combined with the fully described input schema, safety annotations, and output schema, the description provides enough information to select and invoke this simple read correctly. Omissions such as not-found behavior are minor and do not impede normal invocation.

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 100%, and the id field already documents both accepted identifier forms and their source. The description largely repeats that information without adding examples, formatting details, or guidance for ambiguous identifiers.

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 specifies the operation, resource, and cardinality: retrieving details for one PropFácil listing. This distinguishes it from search_properties and the list-oriented siblings, while the listingKey/ID prerequisite reinforces its single-record role.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool when the user wants one listing's details and already has an identifier from search_properties. It does not expressly direct agents to search_properties when no identifier is available or contrast adjacent tools such as get_property_contact, but the workflow context is clear.

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