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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable return-content context—trust scores with evidence, uptime, features, payment methods, supply chain, cheapest listings and medians—though it does not cover error or pagination behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly enumerating relevant return fields; the second sentence gives the input-source instruction without filler.

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 small read-only lookup with rich annotations and complete parameter schema, the description adequately explains what the response contains. Minor gaps remain around error handling and how the services count affects pagination, but no output schema exists to carry that burden.

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 the schema documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by specifying that the slug should come from search_panels and that the service listings are cheapest listings with market medians.

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 identifies a single panel's full profile and enumerates the returned data categories, making the resource and scope clear. It references search_panels for the slug but does not explicitly contrast with all siblings such as compare_service_prices or list_services.

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 sentence 'Use the slug from search_panels' gives clear context: this is a detail lookup following search. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives like compare_service_prices, so it lacks exclusions but provides usable workflow guidance.

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