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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool reads registered property data and includes rights, but does not mention any read-only guarantee, pagination, or potential error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, including the 'Legal entities only' clarification.

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 simple single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the scope (registered property, rights), and the entity-type restriction. It could mention whether results are paginated or list details, but this is not essential for basic invocation.

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?

The single parameter 'code' is fully documented in the schema with a pattern and description, giving high schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the tool returns real property registered to a Lithuanian legal entity, including the rights recorded per object. This uses a specific resource (real property of legal entities) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_court_cases or get_participants, which cover different domains.

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 description explicitly restricts usage to legal entities, signaling when not to use it (individuals). It does not name alternative tools for other property types or scenarios, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer this is the go-to tool for real estate holdings.

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