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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses per-service timeouts, partial results, brief caching, registry-only fallback when an endpoint is asleep, that nothing is hardcoded, and that it is free and unauthenticated. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers mechanism, resilience, and access model. Each paragraph is purposeful, though the four-paragraph block is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a two-parameter read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary; the description instead covers the pieces an agent still needs — data provenance, resilience/fallback behavior, auth and cost. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual depth beyond the schema for probe (lightweight MCP handshake against each member endpoint, no network fan-out when False) and clarifies that kind filters the member roster by role, earning a small bump.

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 (enumerate) and resource (live DPYC service network) with scope (self-described summaries, member roster). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like resolve_service, service_status, and list_campaigns 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?

Explains the key usage decision via the probe flag: True for live handshake, False for a fast registry-only listing, and points to the service's check_price for pricing. However, it never names a sibling alternative or states explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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