get_occupancy_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields, which helps set expectations, but does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a read-only 'get' operation, 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema). The description lists expected output fields, and the schema fully documents the parameter. It lacks return structure/error details but is sufficient for a simple detail-fetching tool.

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%, and the parameter's description already explains where the ID comes from ('from profile or list_flats'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get detailed occupancy info for a flat' and enumerates the specific fields returned (tower, wing, floor, project, flat number, occupancy type). This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_flats and get_flat_access.

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 usage when detailed occupancy info for a specific flat is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The schema's parameter hint ('from profile or list_flats') provides indirect context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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