Get property details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the returned data fields, which is useful since there is no output schema. It does not discuss error behavior or language fallback beyond what the parameter description already states, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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 tool with only two parameters and strong annotation coverage, the description is fairly complete. It enumerates return content, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and does not mention potential errors or edge cases, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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%, with both parameters (uri and languageCode) already described meaningfully in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool gets details of one property and enumerates exactly what fields are returned (data type, units, allowed values, description, related properties). This is a specific verb+resource definition and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bsdd_get_property_classes or bsdd_get_property_value.

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 when to use it (when you need details of a single property) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. No alternatives are mentioned within the description.

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