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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload ('canonical detail URL plus a short summary'), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid/nonexistent slug, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the return-value note follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 no output schema, the description covers input meaning and what comes back, which is most of what an agent needs. The only gap is unspecified behavior when the slug does not resolve to a listing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the slug format with an example. The description only restates 'by its URL slug' and adds no further meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a single Fursat home') with the lookup key named ('by its URL slug'), which naturally contrasts with the plural search_listings sibling. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings, but an agent can tell what it does unambiguously.

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 'by its URL slug' phrasing implies this is the follow-up step once a slug is known from search_listings, so usage is inferable. However, it never names the alternative, states when not to use it, or explains what to do if only a name/query is available rather than a slug.

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