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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that — only *published* listings are retrievable — but says nothing about what happens for unknown or unpublished slugs (empty result vs error).

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 verb, scope qualifier ("published") and lookup key front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 with full annotations and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only missing piece an agent might want is failure semantics for a nonexistent or unpublished slug.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema fully documents it (100% coverage) with type, pattern and length constraints. The description's "by its slug" merely restates the parameter's role, adding no format or sourcing guidance, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves exactly one published hospital identified by slug, which is clearly distinct from the bulk-oriented search_listings and list_* siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, but the singular "one ... by its slug" framing makes the single-item contract obvious.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it already holds a slug and wants the full record for one listing. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., "use search_listings when you don't have a slug") and no prerequisites or fallback behavior mentioned.

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