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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the interactive carousel behavior, the in-widget booking flow routed through book_consult with 'every booking rule applies,' and the concrete claim that 'browsing stores nothing.' 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?

Three sentences with no waste: core function, booking interaction, then routing and read-only note. Every sentence earns its place and key facts are front-loaded.

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 0-parameter widget with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what it shows, when to select it over get_services, how its booking interaction behaves, and its storage footprint. Nothing needed for correct invocation is 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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. This meets the baseline-4 expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 — 'Shows yesmcp's services' — and adds the rendering format (interactive card carousel) with the content areas covered. Explicitly contrasts with get_services, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 an explicit routing rule: 'Prefer this over get_services when the user asks what yesmcp does or offers and this client can render interactive tools.' It names the alternative, states the condition, and implies the inverse (use get_services when interactive rendering is unavailable).

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