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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing is 'verified' and that the slug comes from search results, but it does not describe return behavior, possible errors, or what happens if the slug is invalid. This is adequate 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, resource, and input source immediately.

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 simple detail-fetch tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could clarify what 'details' include or whether only verified listings are returned, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 is already documented as 'Listing slug from search or category results.' The description reinforces the source of the slug, but it does not add format or validation details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a verified HouseJester business listing'), and it names the required input source ('slug from search results'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling search or list tools and from category/city detail tools by specifying a business listing.

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?

It states the context for use: retrieve details using a slug obtained from search results. This implies the tool is for looking up a known listing rather than searching, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for unverified listings').

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