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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds non-obvious context: results include both list price and Care Plan member price plus a page URL, and empty-query behaves as a category browse rather than returning nothing.

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 dense sentences front-load the domain and verb, then the return payload, then the empty-query behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 description compensates by naming the returned fields. Gaps remain minor: no guidance on how query and category interact when both are supplied, and no mention of the limit cap of 25 results.

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 67%, and the schema already defines query as "What the family needs, in plain words" and documents every category enum value. The description's query examples reinforce free-text phrasing but largely repeat that field's meaning, and the limit parameter is left unexplained in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Search Kareverse's elder-care services in Bangalore"), scopes it by need, and enumerates concrete query examples plus what the results contain (price, Care Plan member price, page URL). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_service or search_guides, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 one explicit usage instruction — "Leave query empty to list a category" — which is genuinely useful behavioral guidance. Beyond that, there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_service, search_guides, or check_service_area, so selection guidance is only implied.

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