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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the safety profile with explicit non-behaviors: 'does not create an order, collect payment, or call an AI provider.' That negative scoping is genuinely useful against a sibling named prepare-order-tool. It stops short of mentioning auth or rate limits, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and the identifier source, then progressively adds return contents and the workflow handoff. It is a fairly dense paragraph, but each sentence carries information; only the return-field enumeration is borderline verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the response contents (content, scope with exclusions, buyer requirements, questions_before_order with ids, attributes, packages with IDs, prices, currencies and delivery estimates). Combined with the non-behavioral exclusions and the prepare-order handoff, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the schema already explains that service_id comes from search-services-tool and is 'not a package ID'. The description restates the same origin and example (svc_8f3k2m9qxa) without adding syntax or format constraints beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (read one microservice) and immediately names the sibling that produces the required identifier (search-services-tool), which cleanly separates it from search-services-tool and prepare-order-tool. An agent can distinguish it from all four siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the precondition (service_id must come from search-services-tool), the workflow step (compare package requirements/scope against the customer's task before selecting a package), and the explicit next-tool routing ('To order, pass the chosen package and answers to prepare-order-tool'). When-to-use and handoff are both stated.

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