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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that — only *published* listings are returned — but says nothing about what happens when a slug is unknown or unpublished, nor what the response contains.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. 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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least indicate what a returned 'listing' contains or what a miss looks like. The 'published' qualifier is the only extra context given.

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% and the single slug parameter has a pattern, length bounds and description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'by its slug' only restates the parameter's role without adding format or normalization guidance (e.g., whether it must already match the pattern).

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 states a specific verb (get), cardinality (one), domain resource (published TMS clinic), and lookup key (slug). It implicitly contrasts with the list/search siblings through 'one' vs 'search_listings'/'list_places', but never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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: fetch by slug when the identifier is already known, rather than searching. The description never says when to prefer this over search_listings or what to do if only a name is known, and gives no prerequisites.

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