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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that omitting include yields only the summary while ["content"] inlines the full pitch, but that detail is also carried by the schema's include description, so the added value is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and both clauses carry information (resource+key, then the include behavior). It is efficient, though terse enough that it leaves gaps the schema must absorb.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essentials. With no output schema, a brief note on what 'full detail' returns would have been the only missing piece.

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% — slug format, the context field's purpose, and the include enum are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond it, so the 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 a specific verb and resource ('Full detail for one service offering') plus the keying parameter ('by slug'), so an agent can distinguish it from the many find_* siblings that list rather than fetch. It never names a sibling explicitly (e.g. find_services as the slug source), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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: 'by slug' hints that a prior find_services call supplies the identifier, and the include clause implies when to request the full pitch versus the default summary. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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