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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, not open-world). The description adds a critical interpretive behavior: absence of public evidence is not proof that Oleba refuses a locality. That is valuable context beyond annotations, though it does not cover auth, rate limits, or return behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the caveat is front-loaded. The structure is compact, though the first sentence is abstract rather than action-oriented.

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 two required params, an optional limit, and no output schema, the description omits return values, parameter semantics, and when to use it. It supplies one important interpretive rule but leaves the agent with major gaps.

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%; none of service, location, or realization_limit are described in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all—it never mentions what service or location should be, nor what realization_limit controls. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 conveys the semantic intent—distinguishing a documented offer from a published realization—but never states the concrete action (e.g., 'checks whether...') or what the tool returns. An agent cannot tell exactly what check_service_area does from the description alone, though the title supplies some clarity.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus siblings like get_service, get_realizations, or ask_oleba. It only states an epistemic caveat, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context entirely.

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