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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true) against a closed data set (openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lowered. The description still adds real context the annotations don't: currency (DKK), that prices exclude VAT, and that each package's included items are returned — details that directly affect how an agent presents the data.

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 tightly-packed sentence with zero filler, leading with the verb and resource and ending with the optional scoping clause. Every clause carries information.

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 single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials and hints at the return payload ('what each package includes'), plus currency and VAT semantics. It stops short of describing the shape of the response (package tiers, how many packages), which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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 single parameter is fully documented with an enum in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the filter is optional and scoped to one service; it adds nothing about the enum values or what happens with an invalid service.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a well-scoped resource ('Adbull's indicative price packages in DKK excl. VAT, with what each package includes'), which is naturally distinct from siblings like get_services or get_company_info. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'Optionally for one service' implies both the unfiltered (list all packages) and filtered (single service) modes, so the calling pattern is inferable. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_services, nor any prerequisite such as resolving service slugs first.

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