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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'This MCP tool is read-only and never creates an order or submits payment itself.' It adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the agent must obtain explicit user authorization before using the returned endpoints, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes: first introduces the tool, second details the output, third clarifies the read-only nature and authorization requirement. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 has no parameters and output schema is present, the description covers the essential information: what options are returned, for which consultation types, and that user authorization is needed for subsequent actions. It does not mention edge cases like unavailability, but for a read-only informational tool, this is sufficient.

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?

With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It adds value by describing the return content (live options, prices, terms, schemas, endpoints) which gives the agent a sense of what the tool provides. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools.

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's function: 'Discover and arrange paid consultations' and then specifies it returns live options for a written email consultation and a 45-minute call. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_paid_call_availability by listing the exact consultation types and the rich set of returned data (prices, terms, schemas, endpoints).

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?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: when needing options for a written email consultation or a 45-minute call. It also explains that the returned endpoints should only be used after explicit user authorization, providing practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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