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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a pure read. Beyond that it discloses return-field semantics that annotations cannot carry — that questions affect price and time, that `shown_if` creates answer-dependent branching, and that `?` is valid where `unknown_allowed` is set. It does not mention currency or pagination, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 content is dense but front-loaded: the required input source comes first, then the return payload, then the edge-case vocabulary. The opening is a sentence fragment and the parentheticals make it slightly telegraphic, but every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so concretely (price, duration, bookable flag, question list, conditional questions, `unknown_allowed`). Minor gaps remain around currency/units and whether the list is complete or paged.

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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the `company` field's origin in a find_companies result. The description's note about passing `company` largely restates the schema, and it never mentions `lang`. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 enumerates exactly what is returned per service: starting price, duration, bookability, and the client intake questions, plus the semantics of `shown_if` and `unknown_allowed`. It does not literally name the listing verb, but the resource and payload are unambiguous and it is clearly distinguished from siblings like get_quote or check_availability, which return computed/availability data rather than the catalog.

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?

It explicitly ties itself to the preceding step ('At the company chosen from find_companies (pass its `company`)'), establishing the workflow ordering and the required input source. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or contrasting with company_info/get_quote, so no exclusions are present.

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