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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral nuance beyond that — results are scoped to the caller's entitlements — but says nothing about whether that filtering hides services entirely or flags them, and no return shape is given (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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before the scoping qualifier. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a zero-argument, read-only enumeration tool with rich annotations, this is close to sufficient: the agent knows what it gets (a service list annotated by caller availability). The only gap is that with no output schema, the description could have sketched the returned fields (service name, availability flag) to help downstream reasoning.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words inventing filter options that the schema forbids (additionalProperties: false).

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 ('List NoInfra agent services') plus the scope of what is returned ('which are available to the current caller'). It contrasts implicitly with siblings like noinfra.catalog.get and noinfra.recommend_agent, but never names or disambiguates them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool to call before provisioning (noinfra.email.provision) or asking for a recommendation. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or pointer to an alternative for a different question.

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