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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the breadth of returned data (legal description, valuation, ownership, loans, listings, activity, imagery) and by carving out geometry to a sibling tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the core verb and resource, then enumerates return facets and ends with the sibling hand-off. No filler sentences, and the most important information comes first.

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 returns and does so comprehensively, including the geometry exclusion. The only gap is that it omits the one-of relationship between the two optional identifiers.

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 slug and tokenId are already documented with examples, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about the two lookup modes, and notably neither parameter is required, so it never clarifies whether one of slug or tokenId must be supplied.

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 (Get) and resource (tokenized property details on Fabrica/Sepolia) and enumerates the returned facets, so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_property_map, which covers boundary geometry.

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 final sentence routes the agent to get_property_map for boundary geometry, an explicit alternative for a related need. However, it gives no guidance on when to use get_property vs search_properties, nor on choosing between the slug and tokenId lookup paths.

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