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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: prices are indicative for scoped projects and are explicitly not quotes, and the caller is instructed to cite the canonical URL. It stops short of describing pagination or freshness, but for a static content read that is minor.

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 front-loaded and information-dense, but the second half is a run-on inventory of return fields (seven report outputs, exclusions, disclaimer, URLs) that duplicates what the existing output schema already defines. That inventory crowds out the more decision-relevant caveats and makes the sentence harder to scan.

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 a single optional parameter, an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition tells the agent everything needed to call it and interpret the result. The only soft spot is the absence of a clear trigger condition tying this tool to a buyer-pricing question.

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% and the single enum parameter already documents that omitting lang returns both languages, so the schema carries the parameter semantics entirely. The description mentions "canonical Dutch and English URLs" but adds no format or behaviour detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Returns the four OwnYourAgent services in phase order" is a specific verb plus a precisely scoped resource, and the parenthetical names the four phases so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_approach, get_ownership_check or search_agent_examples.

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 routing sentence explains that usage.routing redirects buyers to sister sites for contact centres, organisation-wide projects and AI literacy training, but that is guidance about the payload, not about when to call this tool versus a sibling. There is no explicit "call this when a buyer asks about pricing" trigger and no named alternative tool.

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