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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them — a stable slug, the requires_matricula license flag, and ecosystem guarantees (identity-verified professionals, on-platform payment, dispute resolution) — but says nothing about auth needs, caching, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then return shape, then the usage trigger — good ordering with no boilerplate. The long parenthetical enumeration of Spanish trade names is useful for slug mapping but is the one place the sentence sprawls.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the fields returned (slug, name, optional description, requires_matricula). Combined with the zero-parameter schema and the sequencing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add cross-tool meaning by explaining that each entry's slug is the value to pass as the `service` parameter on muovi_search_professionals and muovi_create_task_link, which is more than an empty schema conveys.

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+resource (list every service category Muovi supports) with an explicit geographic scope (Argentina) and an enumerated inventory of the categories returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like muovi_list_cities or muovi_search_professionals, which operate on cities and professionals rather than the service taxonomy.

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?

Ends with an explicit sequencing rule: 'Call this first when you need to map a user's natural-language request to a Muovi service slug.' It also names the downstream consumers of the returned slug (muovi_search_professionals, muovi_create_task_link), so the agent knows both when to call it and what it enables.

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