Get property details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: fees is null when none are assessed, flag lists are empty when none apply, and an old premint ID returns the successor token. It doesn't discuss auth requirements or pagination/volume, but the disclosure is well above the annotation baseline.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and the rest is organized as a return-content inventory plus scoping statements. It is long and enumerative but nearly every clause carries information the agent cannot get elsewhere (no output schema), with only mild redundancy.

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, the description carries the full burden of describing returns and does so comprehensively: legal description, valuation, tax status, property checks encoding, ownership, loans, listings, activity, media, lifecycle stage, fee state, duplicate-claim flags, and successor-token behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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% and both parameters (slug, tokenId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as whether slug or tokenId is preferred or how they interact, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieve comprehensive details about a specific tokenized property on Fabrica/Ethereum Mainnet) and explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, get_property_map (boundary geometry) and get_trust_documents (full legal record). An agent can select this over the near-neighbours without opening any schema.

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?

Routing is provided by the two explicit boundary statements: boundary geometry lives in get_property_map and the full legal record in get_trust_documents, so the agent knows what this tool will and won't cover. It lacks an explicit 'use when you have a slug or tokenId' trigger and doesn't mention search_properties for discovery, so it's clear context without a complete when/when-not rule.

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