get_propertysource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action, such as return format or error behavior. Since annotations cover safety, the description adds minimal value here but doesn't contradict them.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no output schema.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It doesn't mention what 'details' includes or behavior for missing IDs, but given the simplicity, an agent can likely infer the call. Could be improved by noting it returns the full PropertySource object.

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%, so the single parameter propertysource_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'PropertySource', clearly indicating it retrieves details for a single entity. It distinguishes from plural sibling get_propertysources by implying a specific instance, though it doesn't explicitly mention the ID parameter or contrast with alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should use this tool when it has a specific PropertySource ID and needs details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over get_propertysources or other get tools, and no exclusion or alternative is mentioned.

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