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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes one useful behavioral fact beyond that: only *published* homes are retrievable, so unpublished slugs presumably fail. No error or not-found behavior is described.

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 with no filler; the resource and the keying mechanism both appear immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 ideally would indicate what a returned listing contains or whether related collections are embedded. For a single-record fetcher this is a modest gap, and the 'published' scope plus the resource type give an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 sole parameter carries a defined pattern, maxLength, and minLength, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that the slug identifies the record and adds no format or lookup semantics beyond that.

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 (one published memory care home), and access key (its slug), so an agent can distinguish it from search_listings at a glance. It does not explicitly name a sibling, and the resource wording ('memory care home') differs slightly from the tool name ('listing'), which adds minor ambiguity.

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 of already holding a slug (presumably obtained from search_listings or list_places), but no alternative tool is named and there is no when-not guidance, such as what to do without a slug. 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.