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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety; the description adds the specific boundary constraints, which is helpful context. However, it does not disclose return behavior, failure semantics, or whether both parameters are needed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One clean sentence with no filler; it is front-loaded with the action and resource. Some jargon ('Resolver v1') is unexplained but not 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 and only readOnlyHint annotation, the description must carry more weight. It explains the evaluation criteria but not the returned result, prerequisites, or how candidate vs service_id relate, making it incomplete for a 2-param tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and neither 'candidate' nor 'service_id' is explained in the description. The term 'service candidate' loosely hints at the first parameter but service_id is unaddressed, leaving the agent to guess inputs.

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 uses the specific verb 'Evaluate' and names the resource 'service candidate' plus the evaluation criteria (Resolver v1 HTTPS, free, public-data, read-only boundary). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like run_service or find_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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as run_service, find_services, or request_service_use. The description only states what it does, not under what circumstances it should be chosen.

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