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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — results are restricted to *published* listings — but does not say what happens for an unpublished or nonexistent slug (error vs empty).

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; the scope qualifier ("published") precedes the selector.

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?

Adequate for a trivial one-param read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, but the unexplained name/resource mismatch ("listing" vs "wellness room builder") and the missing not-found/unpublished behavior leave small but real gaps for an agent deciding among siblings.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema description coverage with a regex pattern and length bounds, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates "by its slug" and adds no formatting or lookup nuance 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?

Specific verb ("Get one") plus resource ("published wellness room builder") and selector ("by its slug"), with the "published" scope stated up front. Minor ambiguity: the tool is named get_listing and its siblings are list_*/search_listings, yet the description calls the resource a "wellness room builder", so an agent must infer these are the same object.

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?

Implies a single-item lookup keyed by slug, which contrasts implicitly with the sibling search_listings, but it never names the alternative or states when to prefer it. No exclusions (e.g., unpublished or missing listings) are given.

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