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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by noting the tool renders interactive UI and by warning to pass only IDs from a data tool, which prevents hallucinated inputs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key usage context and followed by a terse input constraint. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 UI rendering tool with read-only annotations and an output schema present, the description fully covers when to use it, what it does, and the critical input guard. Nothing essential is missing given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with propertyIds already described as 'listingKey values returned by search_properties' and title described. The description adds a similar caution about passing already-returned IDs, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: rendering property results as interactive cards, comparison, details, or a map after search_properties. It explicitly ties to the search context and distinguishes from data-fetching siblings like get_property and 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context (after search_properties, when user benefits from interactive UI) and a critical constraint (pass only listing IDs returned by a data tool). It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the conditional framing implies it is not a substitute for search or data retrieval.

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