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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that passing a slug returns a single service in detail, that the response includes page URLs, and that the content is discovery-level rather than a quote. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single paragraph with a clear flow: purpose, content list, parameter usage, and a caveat. It front-loads the core purpose and is not overly verbose, though the enumeration of services could be seen as slightly redundant with the schema enum. Overall it is well-structured and information-dense.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, content, parameter behavior, and a usage limitation. It hints at the output structure ('what it's for and its page URL' and 'detail'), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps, such as explicit response format, are acceptable given the simplicity.

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 schema fully describes the slug parameter (optional, enum, and explanatory text 'Omit to list everything'). The description essentially repeats that information without adding new semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the full catalog of Upforge's services, enumerates the service types, and describes the output ('what it's for and its page URL'). It also includes a direct usage phrase ('use this for what services do they offer'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_case_studies or get_industries.

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?

It provides a clear trigger example ('Use this for what services do they offer') and caveats that the discovery terms are not a build quote, which helps an agent avoid misusing it for quoting. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the sibling names and the specificity of the description make the intended use clear.

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