Get property

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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, but the description adds important behavioral detail: key codes and alarm codes are never returned. It also discloses that keys include holder and check-out status, and that custom fields and a default picture link are returned. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then lists returned fields in a compact, information-dense style. It is longer than a minimal sentence, but with no output schema the field enumeration earns its place and is organized around the property record rather than padding.

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 no output schema exists, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so thoroughly by listing address, status, roles, certificates, arrangements, keys, alarms, custom fields, and picture link. It also clarifies excluded data, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly alongside annotations and a fully documented input schema.

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 both the required property_id and optional include_contact_details are already documented in the input schema. The description confirms retrieval by ID but does not add parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 and resource: retrieving one property by ID. It enumerates the returned property record contents and explicitly distinguishes this tool from event and role-search data by noting that prices and bedrooms live elsewhere. This gives an agent enough information to identify the tool's unique scope among siblings.

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?

It establishes context by saying this returns one property by ID and notes where prices and bedrooms actually live, which helps route the agent away from inappropriate use. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as search_properties or get_property_events, nor does it 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.