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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned fields (type and online status) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about behavior when property_id is invalid or about the keyid=partner fallback.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. The trailing API path is compact and useful for mapping to Operto docs, though it is the least essential element.

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 with a fully described schema and a readOnly annotation, the definition covers what it does, what it returns, and the endpoint. Only the sibling-vs-sibling routing decision is left unstated.

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%, including a documented enum for keyid, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the property_id vs keyid=partner relationship, leaving the baseline score appropriate.

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 and resource ("List the smart thermostats of one property") and even names the fields returned. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling operto_list_thermostats by scoping to a single property, though it never names that sibling outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: you need a property_id, so the tool applies when you already know the property. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus operto_list_thermostats (all thermostats) or operto_get_thermostat (single unit), which are the obvious alternatives.

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