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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the description's added value is the domain context: prices are in EUR and sessions are conducted in Russian, both of which materially affect how the agent relays the result. It says the content is 'verbatim from the site,' signaling authoritative first-party text, though it gives no freshness or caching caveats.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the payload (what fields are returned) followed by the qualifiers (currency, language). No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema already exists, so the description need not explain the return shape, and a no-argument informational tool has no invocation pitfalls to document. Content, currency, and language are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns (session format, duration, price, and payment/reschedule/no-show rules), which is more informative than a bare 'get services' label. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the neighboring get_consultation_details or get_practice_overview, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when a user asks about pricing or booking policy. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. get_consultation_details) for related requests.

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