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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It adds behavioral value by disclosing that the response includes ALL plan options and the specific option fields, and that the tool is a lookup step in a workflow. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: the main capability is stated first, followed by expected workflow and an explicit alternative. The sentence is long, but every clause adds useful routing or content information without repetition.

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?

Given a single required parameter, a rich input schema, detailed response field enumeration in the description, and annotations covering side effects, there is no missing context an agent needs to invoke this tool. It even defines how the result should be used in the larger order flow.

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 schema already covers service_id 100%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the id comes from search_catalog and can be used to fetch a service the agent already has. This clarifies the provenance and usage of the parameter beyond the schema's bare 'The service id from search_catalog.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one service's full detail') and enumerates the exact fields returned (plan id, name, price per 1000, min/max quantity, quality tier, typed axes, delivery speed, start window, recommended flag). It distinguishes itself from recommend_service by explicitly defining its scope as showing all options with the chosen option passed downstream.

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?

States precisely when to use it: after search_catalog or whenever you already have a service id. It also explains what to do next (pass service_option_id to get_quote and place_order) and when NOT to use it: 'For a ready-made choice for a given quantity, call recommend_service instead.' This is exemplary routing among siblings.

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