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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful, non-obvious context — the returned name and URL follow the visibility of the public profile in the requested language — but the phrasing is ambiguous and it never says what happens when no visible version exists or the ID is invalid.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the language rule follows. Slight economy lost because the second sentence is vague enough to require a second read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a two-parameter lookup amid four siblings, the definition omits error/failure behavior for unpublished or unknown properties and omits any positioning relative to `resolve_property`, leaving an agent with real ambiguity.

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 0%, so the schema alone documents nothing beyond types, a default of 'ita' and a pattern. The description partially compensates by telling the agent to pass the conversation language (the only real semantic guidance available), but `propertyId` receives no explanation at all beyond its name.

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: returns the public profile ('scheda pubblica') of a published property, with the qualifier that it must be published. That is clear enough to know what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling `resolve_property`, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 only usage-like instruction is 'Passa la lingua della conversazione', which tells the agent how to fill one parameter, plus an implicit restriction to published properties. There is no statement of when to prefer this over `resolve_property`, or what to do when the property is not published.

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