refinery_get_property

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

Annotations already convey read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: this is a paid lookup ($0.35 via x402), conditional on REFINERY_ENABLE_X402=false. It also names the included enrichment categories, which helps set expectations for the response.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then cost/behavior, then included data. Every sentence contributes, though the final sentence partially restates the 'full scored details' idea from the opening.

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-required-parameter lookup with an output schema and useful annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, the paid-lookup caveat, and the included contents. It lacks explicit sibling-tool routing, but that is not critical for a focused property detail lookup.

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 description mentions ZPID as the key input, but that is also present in the schema. It does not explain the response_format parameter or add any validation/format nuance beyond the schema. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('full scored details for a single property by ZPID'), immediately identifying the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from list/search/history sibling tools. 'By ZPID' also clarifies the scope of the lookup.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a single ZPID and need full enriched property details. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like search_properties, list_properties, or geolice_history, and it does not state when not to use this tool.

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