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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying the tool returns static package information and explicitly excludes live capacity and purchase functionality, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the negative scope is concise and informative.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no required fields, and an output schema exists. The description covers the content scope and the key exclusions. It doesn't mention the locale parameter, but the schema fully documents it, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, but there is only one optional parameter (locale) with an enum of 'en' and 'hr' and a default of 'en'. The description doesn't mention locale, but the schema fully documents it with enum values and a default, so the parameter semantics are already clear from the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool reads the three public service packages, including prices, scope, conditions, and the written enquiry process. It distinguishes itself from a purchase or live capacity tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when the user needs static public service package information, not live capacity or purchasing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the negative scope ('Not live capacity or a purchase') provides clear context for when not to use it.

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