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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (description, page URL, markdown URL per service), which is meaningful given there is 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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then the returned fields. The long parenthetical enumeration is slightly heavy but each item earns its place by defining coverage.

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-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the one missing piece, what each returned service record contains. Adequate and self-contained, with only minor room to mention pagination or result size.

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; there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full-catalog call with no arguments.

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 services) and then enumerates the exact catalog covered (live/AI answering, virtual receptionist, scheduling, chat, SMS, call center), making the scope unambiguous. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_pricing or get_company_info.

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 implied: call this when you need the full service catalog. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tool is named, so an agent must infer selection from the sibling list.

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