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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, closed-world read profile, so the bar is lower. The description does add one useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: only *published* records are returned, implying unpublished listings behave differently. It says nothing about a not-found response for a missing or unpublished slug.

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, front-loaded with the verb and the scoping constraint ('published', 'one', 'by its slug'). Nothing to trim.

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 simple single-record read with full annotations and a fully documented one-parameter schema and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the not-found/unpublished behavior, which matters because the description explicitly limits results to published records.

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%, with the slug pattern, length bounds, and a description already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the slug identifies a published record, not any new syntax or format detail.

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 single resource (one listing/pet crematory), and the lookup key (slug). The phrase 'one ... by its slug' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural siblings search_listings and list_places, but it never names an alternative. Minor friction from calling the resource 'pet crematory' while the tool is named get_listing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer that this is the single-record fetch and that search_listings is how a slug is discovered, but the description states none of that. Only implied usage at best.

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