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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the read-only, non-destructive nature is clear. The description adds useful context: the escrow guarantee ('Every charge is held in escrow until the buyer accepts the deliverable') and the role of the tool as entry point. These go beyond what annotations provide, though they are more about the surrounding flow than the tool's own execution.

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?

The description is composed of three compact, purposeful sentences: the first nails the purpose and scope, the second routes to downstream flows, and the third adds a trust-relevant behavioral note. There is no fluff, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only search), a full parameter schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains the flow and mention of categories and pricing mode, so an agent can invoke it and interpret results within the broader Bitroad context, especially when combined with the pool of sibling tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema already explains q, cursor, category, page_size, and pricing_mode. The description confirms filtering by category or pricing_mode but adds no semantic detail beyond the parameter descriptions. At the high-coverage baseline, a 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search service listings'), enumerates the relevant categories, and explicitly positions it as the entry point to the Bitroad flow, distinguishing it from siblings like services_purchase and services_request_quote. A model can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 gives explicit routing: 'find a listing, then buy it with services_purchase (pricing_mode 'fixed') or file a scope with services_request_quote (pricing_mode 'quote')', and tells the agent to filter by category or pricing_mode. This is direct, actionable guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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