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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description nonetheless adds a genuine behavioral constraint: only 'published' listings are retrievable, implying draft or unpublished slugs will not resolve. It stops short of stating the not-found behavior or response shape.

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 the resource, scope qualifier ('published'), and lookup key all stated up front. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what matters. The minor gap is the failure mode for an unpublished or nonexistent slug, which an agent would plausibly want to know.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the slug's format, pattern, and length. The description only restates 'by its slug' and adds no syntax, format, or resolution behavior beyond the structured field, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get one published dating coach') and narrows it to a single record fetched by slug, which is clearly distinct from the plural list siblings (list_categories, list_places, search_listings). It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the single-vs-collection distinction rather than being told it.

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?

'by its slug' implies the usage condition (you already have a slug), but there is no statement of when to prefer this over search_listings or what to do when the slug is unknown. Usage is inferable but not explicit, and no exclusions are given.

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