get_property_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety and repeat-call profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only a scope note ('one property') and no behavioral detail such as error behavior for unknown URLs, permission requirements for reading permission levels, or rate limits. Moderate credit because the annotation bar is already met.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: what it reads, when to use it, and the fallback tool. The critical purpose sentence is front-loaded and the alternative routing comes last.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return surface, and it does by naming the three fields returned (type, permission level, verification state). Combined with the annotated safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 single siteUrl parameter is documented with two concrete format examples, so the description does not need to explain it. The phrasing 'the property URL is not known yet' reinforces that siteUrl is the identifier but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Read') and resource ('one Google Search Console property') and enumerates exactly what it returns: type, permission level, and verification state. That enumeration distinguishes it from sibling readers like get_sitemap_details and inspect_url without needing the 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?

Gives an explicit positive condition ('when the user names a specific site and wants to know how that property is registered') and an explicit alternative with its triggering condition ('Call list_properties when the property URL is not known yet'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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