Get Sourcey paid services

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it never signs, settles, or interprets a payment, and payment/job-status concerns are handled elsewhere. Return-format detail is deferred to the output schema, which is reasonable.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the scope boundary. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 an output schema present (so return values need not be described) and annotations covering safety, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what is discovered, what the payload contains, and the payment-handling boundary.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Discover Sourcey's enabled paid agent services and canonical HTTP resources') and enumerates the payload contents (contracts, price floor, policy links, x402 discovery). It is clearly a discovery/listing tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_offers or compare_offers.

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?

It establishes scope and boundaries: payment and durable job status live on the product HTTP API, not here. That tells the agent what this tool is not for, but it never states when to prefer it over the sibling discovery/search tools.

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