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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing what each entry contains (bounded scope, deliverables, delivery time, limitations, sample-report links, exact prices) and by flagging the authority precondition on the follow-up order.

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, front-loaded with the comparison scope, then the return contents, then the next-step constraint. The five-service enumeration is somewhat long but each item is a distinct offering, so it earns its space.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not document return values or safety, and it doesn't duplicate them. It supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the role of this catalog in the ordering workflow.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filter arguments 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?

States a specific verb (compare/list) and resource (KnownFix's professional services), then enumerates the exact service offerings so an agent can distinguish this catalog from list_catalog, list_merch, and list_skills without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the downstream sibling order_service and the condition for calling it ('only after choosing a service and confirming authority over the public target'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, state when this catalog is preferred over the other list_* siblings.

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