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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned field set (contacts, opening times, address, last-checked date), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about not-found behavior or data freshness semantics beyond the 'last checked' field name.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields enumerated compactly with no filler. Appropriately sized for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

Because there's no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by listing the field categories. What remains missing is minor: no guidance on unknown ids or on whether the response is a raw record versus a composed view.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains that id is the service id or slug from search_services. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full details for one service') and enumerates the payload fields, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't name a sibling to distinguish itself from, though the 'one service' framing implicitly contrasts with search_services.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says 'one service' while the schema notes the id comes from search_services, so the agent can infer this is the follow-up lookup to a search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what happens if the id is unknown, and no comparison to get_resource_sheet or get_whats_on.

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