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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It usefully scopes what the response contains (pricing, availability, channel data, cancellation policy), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for a missing UID.

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 listing the returned fields, followed by the underlying API route. No filler, and the essential information comes first.

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 only one input parameter, the description's enumeration of returned detail categories (address, time zone, rooms, pricing, availability, channel data, notes, cancellation policy) does meaningful work in place of a return schema. It is close to complete, missing only error/edge-case behavior.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents property_uid fully. The description adds no format, syntax, or sourcing guidance beyond it, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one property) and enumerates the returned detail categories, which clearly separates it from the plural sibling hostfully_list_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?

'Fetch one property's full details' implies the use case (retrieve a single property by UID), but the description never names an alternative or states when to prefer this over hostfully_list_properties or hostfully_get_property_calendar. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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