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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — only *published* agencies are reachable — but says nothing about what happens for an unknown or unpublished slug, and no output schema exists to cover the return shape.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the lookup key is front-loaded alongside the resource. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 trivial single-parameter read with strong annotations, the minimal description is close to sufficient, but the missing not-found/unpublished behavior and return content leave gaps that the absent output schema cannot fill. Adequate, not 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines the slug and its pattern constraints. The description adds only the word "slug" in context and no extra syntax, normalization, or case-sensitivity guidance, so 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Get one published surrogacy agency") and identifies the lookup key ("by its slug"). The word "one" implicitly distinguishes it from the collection-returning siblings (search_listings, list_places), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for fetching a single known agency when the slug is already in hand, versus search_listings for discovery. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of what to do if only a name is known.

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