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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying 'returns static JSON and changes nothing,' confirming the response is fixed content with no side effects.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is detailed but not bloated. The long enumeration of services and pricing terms is necessary to convey the scope of the catalog, and the usage guidance and read-only note are placed after the main content.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a read-only static resource, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the returned content, the engagement/pricing detail, when to invoke the tool, and its side-effect-free behavior. Nothing essential 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, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant detail about what the returned catalog contains, though it does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Returns turva.dev's service catalog' — and enumerates the included services, pricing models, and add-ons. This clearly distinguishes get_services from siblings like get_agent_readiness or get_principles, which target narrower topics.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a user asks what turva.dev offers, what it costs, or how an engagement works.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous and actionable.

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