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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: no mention of what the response contains, whether lang filters the result, or behavior when the service is not attached to the site.

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, zero filler, with the retrieval purpose front-loaded and the pointer to the discovery tool second.

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 lookup with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it and where to get the key. It is only slightly incomplete in not clarifying the id-vs-primary-key distinction that its own second sentence raises.

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 100%, so site_id, id and lang are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates 'catalog service_id' (already in the schema) and its talk of a 'primary key' from list_site_pcp_services slightly muddies rather than clarifies which identifier is required.

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 (Get) and resource (a PCP service attached to a site), which separates it from the global get_pcp_service and from list_site_pcp_services. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling get_pcp_service, so the catalog-vs-site distinction is only implied.

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?

Gives a clear usage context and names an alternative: use list_site_pcp_services to obtain the key needed for update/delete. No explicit when-not-to-use, and the relationship between the 'primary key' it mentions and the schema's 'catalog service_id' is left unresolved.

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