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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuinely new context on what a result entry contains — entry prices, turnaround and booking links — and that results are grouped by build stage, which is behaviour the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of stating result ordering within groups or whether unpriced/coming-soon services are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical stage list is illustrative and slightly padded but does usefully convey the grouping taxonomy. Sizing is appropriate for a simple read tool.

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 carries the return-value burden and does reasonably well, disclosing the grouping key and the per-entry fields. The only real gap is silence on how the optional filters affect the response, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

The description does not mention either the state or project_type filters, so the 100%-covered schema does all the work. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents both parameters with patterns, enums and omit-behaviour.

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 names the specific resource ('Every Kolo Verify service on sale') and its organising principle (grouped by build stage), plus the fields each entry carries (entry prices, turnaround, booking links). It is clearly a catalogue-style listing rather than a lookup, but it never names sibling tools like find_services or get_service, so the agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'every service on sale, grouped by stage' suggests a browse-the-full-catalogue call, contrasted silently with the search-style sibling find_services. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming statement.

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