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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing what each result includes (pack price, saving, booking link), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or how filtering narrows the list.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the payload. The only slight waste is the brand prefix 'Kolo Verify's', but the sentence is otherwise tight and readable.

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, describing the returned fields is genuinely valuable and partially compensates. However, for a two-optional-filter listing tool the description omits any explanation of how those filters scope the results or what the default behavior is.

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%, with both state and project_type fully documented including enum meaning and the 'omit when unknown' default, so the baseline applies. The description adds no filtering semantics beyond the schema and never mentions either parameter.

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 identifies the resource (Kolo Verify's service packs) and enumerates the returned content: contained services, pack price, saving, and booking link. The listing action is implied rather than stated with a verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_services, which keeps it below a 5.

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 at all: nothing says to call this instead of list_services or find_services, and nothing states that the two filters are optional or what happens when they are omitted. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and sibling set.

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