qobrix_get_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the return shape, mapping RESO StandardStatus values, describing include[] expansion behavior, and listing FK field targets. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond simply fetching an item.

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 long but dense and well-structured, starting with the primary purpose, then return format, status mapping, include options, workflow tips, and FK fields. Every section carries useful information, but it could be slightly trimmed without losing value. The use of sections and examples makes it navigable despite its length.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple include[] options, FK fields, and no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers return shape, status enum meanings, expansion capabilities, and practical workflow mappings. There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the responsibility of explaining the data structure and usage patterns.

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?

Although the schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It enumerates verified include[] options, provides workflow tips for specific includes, and explains the relationship between expand and include (e.g., 'Prefer include[] for surgical expansion'). It also maps FK fields to their target resources, which is not present in the schema.

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 opens with 'Get a single property by UUID', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list/search by positioning it as 'the listing detail view in the Listing Lifecycle', making the use case unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you have a UUID and need a single property detail view) and includes workflow tips for specific include[] expansions that guide usage for showing history, interested leads, etc. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., qobrix_list_properties) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls slightly short of the highest bar.

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