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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape — each service paired with its page URL — which matters since there is no output schema. It doesn't mention the language switch affecting those URLs, which is a small omission.

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 that names the resource first and the return content second, with zero filler. The parenthetical service list is long but earns its place by showing enumerable values an agent can match against.

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-optional-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and enough of the domain to be callable. The only gap is that it doesn't note the response differs by language.

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 optional language enum is fully documented there, including default behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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?

States the specific resource enumerated (the electrical services offered) and what each entry carries (its page URL), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't name or differentiate itself from siblings like list_service_areas or get_page, but the content itself is unambiguous.

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: an agent would infer this is the discovery entry point before calling get_page, but the description never says when to prefer it over list_service_areas or get_business_info, and offers no exclusions.

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