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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the REST endpoint (GET /viewings/{id}) and the include-driven embedding behavior, but says nothing about auth requirements, the cancelled-filter default, or error behavior for unknown UUIDs.

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 core purpose and the include expansion, with the endpoint appended as compact technical context. 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?

With no output schema, the description leaves the response shape only implicitly defined by the word 'include' (the schema mentions embedding into 'included'). For a simple read tool that may suffice, but it does not mention the default cancelled behavior or that missing UUIDs may return an error.

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 the schema already documents viewing_id, include, and cancelled in detail. The description only adds a one-line restatement of the include mechanism, which is a baseline contribution given the rich 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One viewing by UUID') and references the include expansion, which distinguishes it from street_list_viewings. It does not explicitly name the list sibling, so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'One'.

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 for fetching a single viewing when you have its UUID, and the schema notes the ID comes from street_list_viewings. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or pointer to alternatives for resolving an ID.

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