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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantive context: prices are in EUR, VAT is excluded, and the response covers inclusions, timeline, and custom-work pricing. It stops short of noting freshness/currency of the prices or that no auth is required.

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 enumerating exactly what the tool returns, with no filler. Everything stated earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must preview return content, and it does so concretely (packages, starting prices in EUR excl. VAT, inclusions, timeline, custom work). Slightly more on price currency/freshness or response format would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and a single well-documented enum parameter (lang), the schema carries the full burden of explaining that the answer language follows the user's language. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description names a specific resource (Hilo Studio's packages with starting prices, inclusions, timeline, plus custom-work pricing), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like hilo_get_service or hilo_list_services, which could plausibly cover similar ground.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (e.g., hilo_request_quote for a tailored price). The agent must infer the trigger (a user asking about pricing) purely from the content list.

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