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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as what happens for a missing ID or how the response is structured. The description provides no value beyond the 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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase with no filler. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it borders on under-specification for a novice agent.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, this description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain the domain meaning of 'house' or edge cases like non-existent IDs, but the output schema covers the return structure.

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?

With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate. 'by id' clarifies that the 'id' parameter is the lookup key, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. However, it doesn't explain constraints, format, or domain meaning beyond that.

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?

Despite lacking an explicit verb, 'Single house by id' clearly identifies the resource (house) and the selection criterion (id), distinguishing it from the sibling 'houses' which likely lists all houses. It could be improved with a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'houses' or other entity tools. There are no mentions of context, alternatives, or exclusions.

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