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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuinely useful context outside the annotations: the required onramp:read grant and the hard scope limit that it will only answer for properties this account is adding.

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 verb and scope lead, followed by a dense enumeration of returned content that earns its length, then two short constraint sentences. The middle sentence is long and list-like, but no clause is filler.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so thoroughly — steps with statuses and dates, the next step and actor, open actions with links, and owner-entered deed/county details. Auth and scope are also covered, so nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the pattern and an explicit pointer to where the value comes from (tokenId from get_my_properties_being_added). The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — fetching one property being added to Fabrica — and enumerates exactly what it returns (step statuses, dates, next actor, open actions, owner-entered data). This clearly separates it from the sibling list tool get_my_properties_being_added, which returns many properties rather than one in full.

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?

It gives the operative condition — 'Answers only for a property this account is adding' — and a prerequisite, the connection's onramp:read grant, plus the tokenId source is documented in the schema. What's missing is an explicit pointer to alternatives (e.g. the list tool or a generic property lookup) when the scope condition doesn't hold.

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