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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the word 'published', signaling that unpublished items are not retrievable, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown slugs or about the returned payload.

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 eight-word sentence with the retrieval target front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool whose safety traits are fully covered by annotations and whose parameter is fully documented in the schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only residual gap is the unexplained 'benchmark' vs 'listing' terminology and what a published listing contains.

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% for the single 'slug' parameter, including its pattern and length constraints, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'by its slug' adds no format or lookup detail beyond what the schema already states; 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 ('Get one published benchmark by its slug'), which is enough for an agent to know it retrieves a single item by identifier. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_listings, and it calls the resource a 'benchmark' while the tool is named get_listing, a mild terminology mismatch.

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 phrase 'by its slug' implies the precondition for use (you must already have a slug), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of search_listings as the alternative for discovery. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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