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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The word 'published' adds genuine context (unpublished listings presumably won't resolve), but nothing is said about not-found behavior or the shape of the returned record.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and the lookup key front-loaded; there is no filler and nothing to trim.

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 single-key read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only gaps are the not-found outcome and a hint at what the response contains, which is minor for this tool shape.

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 parameter carries its own pattern/length constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that lookup is by slug and adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond it.

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 (get), resource (listing), scope (one, published, ADHD evaluation provider), and the lookup key (slug). This clearly distinguishes a single-record fetch from the sibling search_listings, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 statement or routing to search_listings for the case where only a name/query is available. 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.