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 needs no restating. The description does add one meaningful trait beyond them: only 'published' listings are retrievable. It does not say what happens for an unknown or unpublished slug (error vs. empty result).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 sentence with zero filler, and the scope qualifier ('published') is front-loaded before the resource. 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For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it leaves the not-found/unpublished outcome unstated and does not indicate whether a full agent record or a summary is returned. Minor omissions, but they matter for error handling.

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 is fully documented with pattern and length constraints, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no slug syntax, sourcing, or format 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), a specific resource (one investment migration agent / listing) and the lookup key (slug), plus a scope qualifier ('published'). It is distinguishable from search_listings only implicitly — 'one ... by its slug' implies single-record retrieval, but the sibling is never named.

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: an agent can infer this is for fetching a known listing when the slug is already in hand, versus search_listings for discovery. No explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or prerequisite is given.

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