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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the response composition, including that pricing mechanics are surfaced through the FAQ — important context given there is no output schema.

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 tight clauses: what is returned first, then how to obtain the slug. There is no filler, and the actionable dependency is front-loaded at the end where it belongs.

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 enumeration of returned sections is what makes this definition sufficient. The only gap is the absence of any note that the language parameter switches the response locale, which matters for content-returning tools.

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 100% and both parameters are fully described with enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the slug source but says nothing about the 'language' parameter's effect on the returned content, adding no meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns full details of one of ... services') and enumerates the sections returned (audience, deliverables, use cases, technologies, FAQ, pricing). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_services, which only lists.

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?

'Use the slug from list_services' gives an explicit prerequisite and routes the agent to the sibling that produces the required identifier. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., list_services for browsing all services), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not matrix.

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