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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the shape of the payload (individual properties plus summaries, breakdowns and pipeline), but since an output schema exists this largely overlaps structured data and no auth, freshness, or error-path behavior is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then capability detail, then the supported-ticker list, with no filler sentences. The middle return-value sentence is long and partly duplicates the output schema, which is the only mild inefficiency.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: domain (NZX-listed REIT/property companies), valid inputs, and the scope of returned data. Nothing required to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's four example tickers by listing the full supported universe (KPG, ARG, PFI, VHP, IPL, SPG, CDI, GMT, PCT, APL). That is genuine added constraint information an agent can use to decide whether a given ticker is in scope.

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 (get property portfolio data for an NZX-listed REIT/property company) and then enumerates the exact fields returned (book values, cap rates, WALE, occupancy, tenants, locations, climate risk scores). The explicit supported-ticker list (KPG, ARG, PFI...) pins the scope precisely enough that an agent can separate it from adjacent tools like get_property_climate_risk.

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?

Applicability is implied by the enumerated ticker list and the 'NZX-listed REIT or property company' qualifier, which tells the agent when the tool is valid. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing away from closely related siblings such as get_property_climate_risk, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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