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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: a mandatory auth handshake and its cost. It does not describe rate limits, errors, or return shape beyond the field list.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; every clause earns its place. Leading with the auth prerequisite is defensible since it is blocking, though it delays the statement of purpose slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned card contents, and it covers the auth prerequisite. The main gap is that an agent cannot tell how to construct the required 'service' value, which matters for a one-required-param tool.

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 0% for the single required 'service' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'one service', restating the parameter name, and never states the expected format (slug, name, or ID from datailo_catalog) or where to obtain it.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('The full product card for one service') and enumerates the returned content (tagline, datasets, workflows, tiers, docs), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the listing sibling datailo_catalog, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit, actionable precondition: sign in via datailo_connect(email) and datailo_connect_verify first unless already signed in, including that this is free and costs one email. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over datailo_catalog or how to obtain a valid service identifier.

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