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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description usefully adds the v1.1 endpoint, the 50-item cap, and the important limitation that full field values are not returned here.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The key scope limitation is stated before the endpoint, which is easy to scan.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, scope, pagination cap, and the summary-vs-full-record distinction. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain return format here; the main missing piece is explicit routing to full-detail alternatives.

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 coverage is 100%, and both limit and offset are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the maximum-50 note, which is already in the schema, so it does not extend parameter meaning beyond structured fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List properties') and adds scope detail ('with team/agent summaries') plus a versioned endpoint. It distinguishes itself from full property retrieval by stating it does not return full field values, though it doesn't name the sibling tool that would.

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 pagination via 'Maximum 50 per call' and the schema explains offset usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer that this is a summary listing rather than a full-detail fetch.

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