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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining what kinds of inputs are matched: symptoms, platforms, or system names, with concrete examples. It still does not describe return shape 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the examples that follow directly illustrate valid inputs.

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 simple, read-only search tool with full annotations and a fully described two-parameter schema, the description is complete enough. It conveys the search intent and example inputs; no output schema exists, and 'Find services' adequately implies a list of matching services.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete example queries ('stock not matching the warehouse', 'NetSuite', 'failed renewals') that clarify the intended semantics of the required query 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find services by what the visitor is trying to solve,' and clarifies the search scope with symptom/platform/system examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_services and get_service by framing the input around a visitor problem, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: when you have a visitor's problem, platform, or system name expressed in plain words. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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