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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it admirably. It discloses that services are auto-discoverable by default, auto-assigned when there is exactly one active provider, and that unassigned services block admin_toggle_discoverable. It also states the required X-Org-Api-Key header, providing rich behavioral and authentication context.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose. Four sentences pack significant workflow and behavioral detail without wasted words. The structure could be slightly clearer by separating the auth requirement, but overall it is efficient for the amount of information.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong contextual completeness: preconditions, assignment behavior, blocking condition, and next steps. The main gap is lack of return-value or parameter details, but the workflow context is well covered.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It never explains parameters like orgSlug, duration_minutes, price, currency, vertical, or apiKey. While the purpose mentions "organization" and "provider schedule," there is no mapping to specific parameters, leaving the agent guessing about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships.

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 states the tool's purpose: "Add a bookable service to an organization." It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context about auto-discoverability and auto-assignment hints at admin-specific behavior, distinguishing it from generic siblings like service_create. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative service creation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicitly says "Use after admin_create_organization," providing a clear precondition. It also names alternatives: "use service_assign_provider to assign manually" and "Next step: admin_set_availability." This is exemplary guidance for when and how to use the tool within the workflow.

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