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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful "published" filter, meaning unpublished records are silently excluded, but says nothing about behavior for unknown or unpublished slugs.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler words. The identifying scope ("one published") comes before the lookup key, so the reader gets the constraint first.

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 lookup with no output schema, the agent still does not know what fields come back or what happens when the slug is missing or unpublished. The tool is simple enough that this is a modest gap rather than a fatal one, but the description could have covered the not-found case in a clause.

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 slug parameter carries its own pattern and length constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's "by its slug" adds no meaning beyond the schema; 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get one published eating disorder program") and scopes it with the "published" qualifier, which distinguishes it from the list_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, but the singular/collection contrast is clear from the wording.

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 only implied: retrieving a single item by slug suggests a detail-view use case versus the list_* tools, but the description never states when to use this instead of search_listings or list_products. There are no explicit preconditions or exclusions.

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