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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what the response includes (financial amounts, depreciable base, counts of components, works, furniture, loans). This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the level of detail returned, without contradicting any 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then compactly enumerates the content categories. Every word contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and readOnly annotation, the description provides a solid overview of the returned data. It does not explain return format or error behavior, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output scope.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, property_id, with no description (schema_description_coverage = 0%). The description does not mention property_id at all, leaving the parameter semantics entirely to its self-explanatory name. Since the description is expected to compensate for missing schema descriptions, it fails to do so, though the parameter is simple.

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 resource ('bien immobilier') and the specific verb ('Retourne le détail complet'), enumerating included categories (characteristics, financial amounts, depreciable base, counts of related items). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_properties (which lists all properties) and other get_* tools for specific entities.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when retrieving comprehensive details for a single property, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_properties for overviews, get_expense for specific financial entries). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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