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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's main job is to add behavioral context. It does so by confirming 'live product gateway' access and explicitly ruling out checkout, invoice, charge, or payment obligations, which is valuable for a commerce-related tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the side-effect clarification earns its place by preventing misuse.

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-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks explicit guidance on how it relates to sibling tools and what 'current terms' will contain in the response, especially since there is no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single service_id parameter, but it never mentions service_id or how to choose a value. The enum values are self-descriptive, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the raw schema field name implies.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current terms from a live product gateway'), clearly indicating a read operation. It also explicitly states it creates no checkout, invoice, charge, or payment obligation, which separates it from commerce-related sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is for reading current service offer terms, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of siblings like discover_evercraft_services or get_evercraft_commerce_rules. The no-side-effect wording is a negative guarantee, not a direct usage guideline.

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