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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's one genuinely additive fact is the 'published' qualifier, implying unpublished records are not returned. Auth requirements, not-found behavior, and localization are unaddressed.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the identifying mechanism ('by its slug') is placed where it is needed. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 with a fully described schema and complete annotations, plus no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the naming inconsistency (listing vs. French provider) and the absence of any not-found or error behavior, which an agent calling by slug would 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter carries its own pattern, length bounds and description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that lookup is keyed on slug, adding no format or normalization guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and a tightly scoped resource ('one published French provider by its slug'), which separates it from search_listings and the list_* siblings that return collections. It loses a point because the noun shifts from 'listing' in the tool name to 'French provider' in the description, leaving mild ambiguity about the returned entity.

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 rather than stated: 'by its slug' signals a single-item exact-key lookup, and 'published' hints that unpublished items are out of scope. It never names search_listings as the alternative for retrieval by criteria other than slug, nor does it say what to do when the slug is unknown.

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