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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-style catalog operation and specifies exactly what information is returned (slugs, base prices, cities, commission scale). It does not mention authentication or potential limitations, but for a simple no-parameter list the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then packs in the key output details (slugs, prices, cities, commission). Every element earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 there is no output schema and no parameters, the description does a good job of telling the agent what the catalog contains and how to use it with create_task_draft. It could add a note about the response format, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description still usefully explains that the output provides slugs for create_task_draft, which is the relevant semantic context for an agent.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('services disponibles') and the specific purpose: listing slugs for use in create_task_draft, along with CHF base prices, covered cities, and commission scale. It goes beyond the tool name and distinguishes the tool from its sibling create_task_draft by explicitly linking to it.

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 description states the usage context: this catalog provides the slugs needed for create_task_draft, which implicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before calling that sibling. It does not explicitly say when not to use platform_info, but for a zero-parameter catalog the context is clear.

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