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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's only added signal is 'published', hinting that unpublished records are not returned. It says nothing about not-found handling, error shape, or whether the record embeds related entities; for a simple read against a fully annotated tool that is adequate but thin.

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 ten-word sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded, and no hedging or filler. 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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the core is present, but an agent still cannot tell what a 'garage specialist' returns, whether unpublished slugs 404 silently, or how this relates to search_listings/list_places. The definition is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 already carries a pattern, length bounds, and a description. The phrase 'by its slug' restates the schema rather than adding format, source, or lookup-failure semantics, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), cardinality ('one'), and identifier ('by its slug'), and the word 'published' scopes the result set. The resource is described as 'garage specialist' while the tool is named get_listing and siblings use 'listings'/'places', so the vocabulary mismatch slightly blunts differentiation.

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: you must already hold a slug, which selects this over the search/list siblings. There is no explicit 'use this when... instead of search_listings' statement, no note on what to do without a slug, and no exclusion for unpublished items beyond the adjective 'published'.

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