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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a GET endpoint and that include controls related records embedded in the response, but it does not discuss not-found behavior, permissions, or response structure beyond the include concept.

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 two compact sentences, front-loads the core lookup behavior, and ends with the exact REST endpoint. There is no wasted wording.

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 low-complexity read-only GET tool with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. A bit more on return shape or not-found behavior would improve completeness, especially since there is no output schema.

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 already well documented in the schema, including the UUID format and the allowed include values. The description reinforces 'UUID' and 'include' but does not add syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope: one lettings applicant retrieved by UUID. It also clarifies that related records can be embedded via include, which distinguishes it from the list sibling street_list_lettings_applicants and from other applicant-related gets.

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 phrase 'by UUID' implies this tool is for direct lookup when the identifier is already known, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of list/search alternatives or how to obtain the UUID. No exclusions or alternatives are named in the description.

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