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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes prices and scope, which is useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior (missing/unknown id) or caching.

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, the core operation front-loaded and the id-source hint trailing. No filler, though the phrasing is terse enough that it borders on under-explaining.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the id source, and the shape of what comes back. Only failure/empty-result behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 100% with a single parameter that already documents the id format and an example, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added meaning is the provenance of the id (list_services), which is a marginal gain over the schema.

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 and resource ('Get one service by id') and adds the payload scope ('with prices and scope'), so an agent knows it is a single-item fetch rather than a listing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_pricing, which is the one ambiguity left.

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?

'Ids come from list_services' gives one concrete prerequisite and routes the agent to the right sibling for discovery. It never states when to prefer this tool over get_pricing or when a service id is not needed, so usage is only partially implied.

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