get_property_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds only the generic 'Get', which is consistent with readOnly, but does not provide additional context such as potential data volume, provider-specific behavior, or any side effects. Given the annotations, the description meets the minimal bar but offers no extra transparency beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists specific output components. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff or redundancy. It achieves maximum clarity in minimal space.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and a high schema coverage for parameters, the description need not explain return structures. The description adequately captures the essence of the tool for a simple read operation. Minor gaps exist, such as not noting that check-in/check-out are optional for overview purposes, but those are already detailed in the schema, so the description is sufficient in context.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters are adequately documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only lists return fields. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no additional value is added here.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('full property overview') and lists concrete content fields (address, star classification, amenities, room rate options). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_room_grid (room availability) and get_hotel_reviews (reviews) by the nature of the data returned, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for property summaries, nor does it reference siblings such as get_room_grid or compare_hotel_prices for other use cases. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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