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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful transparency by describing the returned details and current room status examples, plus the API endpoint. It does not cover error behavior or auth requirements, but it adds meaningful context beyond 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and returned content before the API endpoint detail.

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 read-by-id tool with complete schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and how it maps to the Operto API.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both property_id and the keyid enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by id' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Get'), resource ('property'), and scope ('one ... by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from operto_list_properties and the reservation/thermostat getters. It also names the returned content (details and current room status).

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 usage by id, and the schema notes the id comes from operto_list_properties, but the description itself does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the list or other getter siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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