Get property definitions

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: names are LOCALIZED (with a Russian Archicad example), built-in names are language-independent, includeBuiltInNames costs 2 extra API calls and is cached, and includeAvailability defaults shift with detail=full. This is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields and beyond the annotations.

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?

It is dense for a 13-param tool but front-loaded with purpose and then organized into purpose, output summary shape, detail semantics, localization warning, filtering, and return envelope. Nearly every clause carries information; a couple of the field enumerations (e.g. type list) could be trimmed since the schema already enumerates them.

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?

With no output schema and 13 optional params, the description compensates well: it enumerates the returned fields per definition, the full-mode additions, and the pagination envelope ({definitions, total, offset, returned, hasMore, groups?}), and it covers the localization trap that would otherwise cause wrong lookups.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more: it explains that detail 'full' adds groupGuid, expressionReference, defaultValue/defaultExpressions, enumOptions with keys, and availability, and it clarifies what builtInName/availabilityCount mean. This adds real meaning over the schema's own parameter docs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Lists property definitions') and immediately scopes it to built-in vs user-defined, then states its downstream purpose (addressing them in get_property_values / set_property_values). This clearly distinguishes it from create_property_definitions, modify_property_definitions, and get_property_ids_by_name.

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?

Explains the resolution workflow (use this to find names, then pass them to get/set_property_values) and names the filter inputs (search / groups / kind / elements / elementTypes) with a localization caveat and example. It does not explicitly contrast with near-siblings like get_property_ids_by_name, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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