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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is the session-scoping constraint implied by 'same search session', which suggests the call will fail or be restricted without a matching token; however, 'safe' is left unexplained and the return behavior is not described.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

For a two-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the definition covers the call mechanics minimally. It omits what the returned 'detail' contains and how failure modes (invalid or expired session token) behave, which for a tool without an output schema would be worth stating.

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 names the parameters but explains nothing. The description partially compensates by tying sessionToken to a search session and propertyId to a property returned in that session, which is genuine semantic value, but it does not say whether the token expires, how IDs are formatted, or what happens with a mismatched token.

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 verb 'Read' and resource 'detail for a property' are present, and 'returned by the same search session' hints at the scope. But 'safe detail' is undefined, and it never states what kind of detail (listing attributes, contact info, pricing) comes back, nor how it differs from siblings like select_property or search_properties.

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 phrase 'returned by the same search session' implies a usage precondition: this tool is meant to be called after a search has produced a property. That is implied context rather than an explicit when-to-use rule, and no alternative tool (select_property, search_properties) is named or excluded.

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