Service packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the catalog is small (~80 packages in a few categories) and prices are denominated in Toman, which shapes how an agent should interpret result counts and currency. It stops short of describing the returned item shape or whether filtering is exact or fuzzy.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then when to use it, then routing. The trailing 'Next:' pointer is a compact way to encode sibling handoffs without prose overhead. Nothing repeats 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?

With eight optional filter parameters, no required args, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scale, currency and next steps adequately for correct invocation. The gap is that it never says what a result entry contains or that pagination is bounded (page max 200, limit max 30) beyond what the schema states.

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 all eight parameters are already documented with defaults, ranges and the sort enum. The description adds only the 'Prices are Toman' framing, which the schema's min_price/max_price descriptions already state, 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 ('Browse Ponisha's ready-made service packages') and immediately parenthesizes with concrete examples ('logo design or WordPress themes') that anchor what a package is. The contrast with 'posting a project' cleanly separates it from pn_search_projects and pn_project.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('buy a defined service at a known price instead of posting a project') and names the two follow-up tools by function ('pn_service for deliverables and add-ons, pn_profile for the seller'). The alternative path is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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