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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that related records are embedded in the response's `included` collection and names the underlying endpoint, which is modestly useful context. It doesn't describe error behavior for unknown UUIDs or what's returned when `include` is omitted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope. No filler. Slightly terse, using telegraphic phrasing ('One landlord by UUID'), but every clause carries information.

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?

There's no output schema, so the description should carry more about the response shape; it only says the requested relations land in `included`. For a simple read-only getter this is close to adequate, but the return envelope (attributes vs. relationships) remains unexplained.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema (including the enum list for `include`). The description only gestures at `include` ('records you ask for') without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (get one landlord by UUID) plus the include-embedding behavior, which distinguishes it from the list tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling getters, but the resource name does the work well enough.

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?

Implies usage via the 'landlord_id from street_list_landlords' path, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the list tool or other getters. The inclusion of `include` hints at fetching detail beyond the list, but this is left implicit.

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