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

With readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false already in annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: 'never collect card data, secrets or email; never create a booking or payment.' It also discloses 'localized, preselected' URL behavior, going beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage and safety notes. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, one enum each, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and safety sufficiently. It does not need to detail return values because the output schema exists. The only gap is the language parameter explanation, but overall it is complete enough for a straightforward URL-returning tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the four service values in prose but does not explicitly tie them to the 'service' parameter, nor does it explain the 'language' parameter beyond the vague 'localized'. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description could be more explicit about parameter meaning and defaults.

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 states the tool returns a secure human-handoff URL for paid advisory services, enumerating the specific service types (valuation review, longlist, teaser/IM, full deal prep). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_advisory_services or recommend_advisory_service, which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicitly provides a usage trigger: 'Use when the user wants the price or correct booking/Stripe route.' It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection. A slightly stronger statement about when not to use (e.g., for free advisory content) would elevate this.

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