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 goes beyond that by enumerating what the response contains (inclusions, price anchor, FAQ, page URL to cite), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource and packs the return contents into the tail. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the payload (inclusions, price, FAQ, URL) and identifies the required input source. It omits any note on locale behavior for a multi-locale service, but the schema covers that, leaving only a minor gap.

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 100%, so both slug and locale are already documented in the schema with format and enum values. The description only reinforces that slug is a service slug sourced from search_services and says nothing about locale, so 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?

States a specific verb (retrieve full description), a specific resource (one Pactum service), and the key (slug). It also names the sibling (search_services) where the slug comes from, so an agent can distinguish it from search_services, request_quote, and search_articles without opening any schema.

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 parenthetical '(from search_services)' tells the agent this tool is the follow-up drill-down after searching, which is clear usage context. It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast explicitly with siblings like request_quote, so it falls short of a 5.

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