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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the concrete HTTP endpoint and clarifies that includes are embedded responses, which is useful operational context beyond the annotations; it stops short of noting response size or latency implications of a 29-item include list.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose first and the endpoint as a trailing anchor. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the include mechanism, and the endpoint. The only gap is that nothing describes the shape of the returned payload (data vs. included arrays), which an agent might want to know when planning follow-on calls.

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% — both property_id and include are fully documented in the schema, including the full enum list. The description merely restates that include controls embedded records, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 ('One property by UUID') plus the domain-specific twist of embedded related records, and the HTTP route anchors the mental model. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like street_list_properties as the collection counterpart, but the singular scope still separates it from the list tools.

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 'with the related records you ask for in include' implies how to use the optional param, and the schema's property_id description points to street_list_properties for obtaining IDs. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not or eligibility statement.

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