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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description's added value is the auth note ("Needs no credentials"), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or the geographic fallback when lat/long are absent, so the bar set by the annotations is met but not exceeded.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The parenthetical clarification earns its place by disambiguating the resource.

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 7-parameter, geographically scoped listing tool with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how to paginate, how search/category interact, or whether lat/long override country, which are the decisions it must make to call this correctly.

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 only 14% (7 parameters, effectively only country documented), so the description carries the burden and fails to: limit, offset, search, category, latitude, and longitude are never explained. The phrase "in a country" loosely maps to the country param, but nothing distinguishes free-text search from category filtering or explains how lat/long relate to country.

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 ("List services") and immediately disambiguates the noun with "the work they sell", which separates it from sibling list_categories or search_tasks. It does not name a sibling directly, but the scope (services offered in a country) 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?

"Needs no credentials" is a real usage signal for an agent deciding whether it can call this, and the country scoping implies when it applies. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_tasks, list_categories, or how_to_connect, so the routing logic is left implicit.

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