Get Catalog Entity Property

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds lifecycle context the annotations cannot convey — that the endpoint is deprecated and may be superseded — which materially affects whether an agent should call it at all.

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?

Two sentences, with the deprecation warning front-loaded before the mechanical one-line purpose statement. No wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the deprecation plus alternatives cover the main decision an agent faces. Only gap: no hint about what a deprecated-but-still-live property response looks like relative to the recommended `include=fields` path.

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%, and the `id` property already explains that it fills `{id}` and that there is no `catalog_entity_property_id` argument; `include` is documented with an enum. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — 'Retrieves a specific Catalog Entity Property by id' — and immediately marks it as deprecated with named replacements. An agent can distinguish it from list_catalog_entity_properties and get_catalog_entity without opening a 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?

The deprecation notice explicitly routes the agent elsewhere: 'use `include=fields` on catalog entities or native catalog endpoints (teams, services, functionalities, incident_types, causes, environments)'. That is strong when-not-to-use guidance, though it never says when this tool remains the correct choice (e.g., legacy IDs or older API versions).

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