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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: bounded pagination, the warning that an empty page is not fabricated coverage, and that booking/website options stay on WellFred (this tool is not the booking path). Minor concern: it refers to 'nextPage' and 'hasMore', which match neither the schema's `page` parameter nor any documented output field, which could mislead.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct concern (pagination, filtering, detail routing, locale). Slightly dense and the nextPage/hasMore terminology adds noise rather than clarity, but there is little wasted text.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers pagination behavior, the category filter, locale choice, and the handoff to offering detail. Left incomplete is the meaning of `kind` as the primary selector and the limit cap, both of which an agent must read out of the 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 carries the full burden for 5 params. It explains categoryUuid (taxonomy filter, omit for standalone classes) and presentationLocale (es/en from conversation or user preference), and implies kind via 'services or classes', but leaves `page` and `limit` (including the max-12 cap) to the schema alone.

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?

Names a specific action (explore/browse) over a specific resource (all current public Costa Rica services or classes) and explicitly scopes it as 'without search or relevance ranking', which separates it from the search_* siblings. An agent can tell this is the exhaustive enumeration tool, not a ranked search.

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 clear conditions: browse the full catalog, use categoryUuid to filter services by taxonomy, omit it for standalone classes, and use the detail tool for a read-only view. It never names a search sibling as the alternative for query-based lookup, so the when-to-use-vs-search routing is left to inference from 'without search or relevance ranking'.

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