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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the silent fallback to an estimate with no offer when a name is not on the list, and the condition that only payable services return an exact price with offer_id. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence, then immediately provides the critical usage ordering and fallback warning. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the prerequisite relationship with get_quote, the payable-service condition, and the failure mode for unlisted names. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its role in the workflow.

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%, so the schema already documents the slug parameter. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but it does imply the slug identifies the business whose services are listed. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states the tool lists configured services with prices and quoting arguments, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_quote. It names the specific resource (services) and the action (list), making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly instructs to call this BEFORE get_quote, explains the dependency (service name must match a configured service), and warns about the fallback behavior when quoting an unlisted name. This is strong when-to-use guidance with clear alternatives and sequencing.

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