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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful context about data provenance, noting each block includes a source link and verification date, but it does not disclose operational behaviors such as response format, error handling, or any side effects.

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 dense sentence but front-loaded with the core purpose ('full card of one service'), followed by a structured enumeration of content blocks. Every clause contributes to describing the return content, though the long list may be slightly overwhelming in one paragraph.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates all returned content areas and even notes source links and verification dates. It lacks only minor details such as behavior when the service slug is not found, but overall it gives a solid expectation of the tool's output.

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 input schema already provides a 100% coverage description for the single 'service' parameter ('slug or name'). The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter's format, possible values, or examples, so it stays at the baseline without compensating beyond schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool returns a 'full card of one service' with a detailed list of content categories (starting conditions, benefits, payments, ratings, contacts, tariffs). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_services and compare_services by specifying 'one service', though it does not name an alternative sibling explicitly.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_city_rates, get_apply_link, or find_services. The usage context is implied by 'one service', but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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