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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that prices are on request and that each service has duration and scope, which sets expectations for content, but it does not disclose deeper operational behavior such as response shape or lack of authentication. This meets the lower bar set by the annotations without exceeding it.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a pricing caveat and the one actionable usage detail. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundant wording.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it says what is returned, notes that prices are not directly available, and explains the optional id. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The single optional id parameter is fully covered by the schema, including an enum and the description 'Return only this service'. The description adds only that the caller may pass one service id, which is already implied by the schema; this provides no significant new meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource ('Goce Petrov's services') and the content ('duration and scope', 'Prices are on request'), which goes beyond a mere restatement of the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the service resource is plainly distinct from case studies, profile, contact, and briefs.

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 implied: an agent would select this tool when it needs Goce Petrov's service offerings, and the optional id provides filtering guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools like ask_goce_agent or submit_brief.

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