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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one extra useful detail is 'published', signaling that unpublished records are not returned, but it says nothing about not-found behavior or error semantics.

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 zero filler, and the key qualifiers ('one', 'published', 'by its slug') are front-loaded.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is a brief note on not-found or unpublished-slug outcomes, which an agent would want before calling.

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 description already documented. The description only reinforces that the slug identifies a listing/company and adds no format or resolution semantics beyond the schema, 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') plus a tightly scoped resource ('one published quantum company by its slug'), which distinguishes single-record retrieval from the sibling list/search tools. The only blemish is the noun mismatch: the tool is named get_listing but the description calls the resource a 'quantum company'.

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 by 'by its slug' and 'one', suggesting this is the lookup path once a slug is known, as opposed to search_listings. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if 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.