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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds that both filters are optional and effectively unfiltered by default, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or ordering. Adequate, not rich, against an already-complete annotation set.

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 usage lead, the sibling pointer follows, and the optional filters are demoted to a clearly labeled block. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 two-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the enumerated service list) and how to narrow it. The only gap is that the shape/format of the returned records is not sketched, which matters slightly more here because no output schema exists.

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 0% and the schema declares no enums, so the description carries the whole burden. It supplies the full allowed value set for category_slug (marketing | web-development | ai-experiences | accessibility) and a concrete example for service_slug ('seo'), which is genuinely additive over the bare string types. It stops short of saying what happens when both filters are supplied or when a slug does not exist.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('List the services TESSA Marketing & Technology offers'), with the actual service lines enumerated so the agent knows exactly what content comes back. It is immediately distinguishable from get_pricing, which it names directly.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ('Use this when someone asks what TESSA does') plus an explicit alternative for a closely related need ('For current prices call get_pricing'). The when-to-use and the sibling routing are both stated rather than inferred.

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