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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful caveat that some fields (EPC, floor plan, agent reviews, schools) are returned only 'when available', but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or response shape, and the field list largely overlaps the output schema.

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, purpose front-loaded and the usage hint second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant 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 an output schema covering return values and annotations covering the read-only/open-world profile, the description needs only to state purpose, argument source, and payload scope – all of which it does.

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% and the schema already documents the id format with an example. The description adds meaning the schema does not: that the ID originates from search results, which is the key operational detail for supplying it correctly.

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 ('Rightmove listing by property ID') and enumerates the payload (price, description, features, EPC, floor plan, agent reviews, nearby schools). An agent can immediately distinguish this detail-fetch tool from the rightmove_search/rightmove_agents siblings.

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?

'Use the ID from search results' gives clear provenance for the required argument and implicitly routes the agent through a search tool first. It lacks an explicit when-not or an alternative named by name, but the operating context is clear.

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