get_class_property_descriptions

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns all properties including system-owned and hidden ones, and mentions the return type (CachePropertyDescription objects). However, it does not discuss performance, authentication, or side effects, which would raise the score further.

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 concise: a header sentence, an important usage block, and parameter/return docs. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema provided but noted as present), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and return type. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description includes a parameter doc: 'The symbolic name of the class to retrieve properties for.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type, compensating for the low coverage. With only one parameter, it's effective.

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 'Retrieves ALL properties of a class including system properties.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use (general document updates needing all properties) and when not (property extraction workflows).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this tool ONLY for general document updates' and 'DO NOT use this tool for property extraction workflows.' It could explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and helpful.

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