qobrix_get_viewing

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 reveals the return shape ('Returns { data: { id, ... } }'), indicates a verified include option, and hints that the response contains property and contact FKs for tracing back to listing and lead. This is valuable, though it stops short of covering error handling or permissions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose (Get a single viewing), return format, verified include, and a follow-up workflow hint. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description is complete: it states what it does, the response envelope, the valid include option, and a concrete next step. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of the return shape, and the parameter schema covers the input details.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (id as 'Property Viewing UUID' and include as 'Verified options: PropertyViewingViewing'). The description mostly repeats the include option and adds no deeper meaning beyond the schema, so it contributes minimal additional insight.

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 a single viewing by UUID' with a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'the showing detail view in the Showing Lifecycle' adds context. It is distinct from the sibling tools like list_viewings and search_viewings because it targets a single view by identifier.

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 you have a specific viewing UUID, and the reference to the Showing Lifecycle provides context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use list_viewings or search_viewings instead), so it falls short of an explicit 5.

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