Get service information

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the data comes from the cup24.it service page (i.e. a static snapshot, not live availability), which explains the freshness caveat and reinforces the split with cup24_get_availability.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the return payload first, the alternative-tool routing second. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but each item (fasting, duration, contraindications, lab tests) earns its place by telling the agent what questions this tool can answer.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value — and it does so concretely (FAQ topics, per-city price range, package test lists). Combined with the routing hint to the availability sibling, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema even tells the agent where to obtain the id (from cup24_search) and gives format examples. The description adds nothing about service_id, but with full schema coverage the 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 resource (a service's cup24.it page) and enumerates exactly what is returned: FAQ fields, min/max price per major city, and lab tests for check-up packages. It also names the sibling tool it is not (cup24_get_availability), so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting either 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 final sentence explicitly routes the agent: use cup24_get_availability for real-time prices and dates, implying this tool is for static descriptive/price-range data. That is a clear alternative-and-condition, though the 'use this when' side is only implied rather than stated outright.

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