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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context with 'last-known' (data may be stale) and 'verification date' (freshness signal), but 'Respect no_current_availability' is undefined jargon that the agent cannot act on without guessing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no padding. The second sentence is compact to the point of being cryptic rather than wasteful.

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 and a rich payload (prices, fees, concessions, verification date) enumerated in the description, the core is covered. Missing are not-found behavior, what 'no_current_availability' actually means, and unit-level versus building-level granularity.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. 'Read one building' implies property_id identifies a building, which is some help, but no format, source, or example is given and nothing indicates error behavior for an unknown ID.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Read one building') and enumerates what comes back: unit prices, fees, concessions, and a verification date. That clearly separates it from sibling list/search tools like search_apartments, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 phrase 'Read one building' implies single-record lookup keyed by an ID, which positions it against the bulk siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The directive 'Respect no_current_availability' is a usage hint that is never explained, so the agent must guess what it entails.

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