Get Property Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. 'Returns details' implies a read-only operation)Skip no mutation is signaledasi. Still, it does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple getter 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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a compact bullet list for the parameter formats. Every sentence contributes useful information with no 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?

For a single-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it defines the purpose and the exact accepted parameter formats. The main missing piece is usage/alternative context, but that is not essential for a straightforward read operation.

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 schema only states that property_id can be an integer or string. The description adds meaningful detail by specifying the accepted formats, including the 'properties/' prefix form. This fully covers the single parameter and goes beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns details about a property.' It is distinct from sibling tools like run_report or list_google_ads_links. However, 'details' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about what information is included.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate, so an agent must infer usage from the name.

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