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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful business rule – only published resources are retrievable – but says nothing about what happens when a slug is unpublished or missing (error vs. empty result).

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 distinguishing scope word 'published' appears early. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup and nothing needs trimming.

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 read with rich annotations and a fully documented parameter, the definition is serviceable but leaves out the not-found behavior and does not route the agent away from search_listings when it lacks a slug. Those are the two gaps that would actually change an agent's decision.

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 has a documented pattern, length bounds, and description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. 'By its slug' merely restates the schema field and adds no format or resolution detail.

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 one ... foreclosure resource') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('published') and the lookup key ('by its slug'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_listings, which overlaps in that both return listings.

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 by 'by its slug' – the agent can infer this is the exact-lookup path when it already has a slug. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, and the obvious alternative (search_listings, for when no slug is known) is never named.

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