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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive hints, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the qualifiers 'published' and 'public,' indicating a safe, publicly accessible read. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether an offering must be currently published – acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter explanations, the agent is left without a description of the ACI projection or the response shape. The description is adequate for a trivial identifier-based read but misses opportunities to clarify the domain-specific 'ACI projection' and the role of schema_version.

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%, and the description does not explain what 'slug' or 'schema_version' mean or how they relate. The phrase 'one published offering' weakly implies slug identifies the offering, but this is not explicit. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and precise resource ('one published offering's public ACI projection'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/discovery tools like discover_offerings. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the wording is unambiguous about scope.

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 provides no information about when to choose this tool over get_listing_status, discover_offerings, or other siblings. It gives no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual conditions; the only implied use is 'retrieve one published offering.'

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