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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context by stating what is returned for each service (description and page URL) and the default behavior when no tag is supplied. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or error behavior, but those gaps are modest for this simple read tool.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The return content is front-loaded and the filtering default follows immediately.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information to call it correctly: what it returns, what each item includes, and how the optional tag behaves. Annotations cover the safety profile, so no critical context is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the tag parameter is fully described, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that omitting the tag returns all services, which is not explicitly stated in the schema.

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 that the tool returns services provided by the business, including each service's description and page URL. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like get_pricing and list_posts, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives or use a literal verb like 'list'.

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 phrase 'Omit tag to get all' gives a useful usage instruction for the optional tag parameter, implying that supplying a tag filters results. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus get_pricing, list_posts, or get_contact_options, leaving broader usage context implied.

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