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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement, the critical business rule that a service without providers cannot accept bookings, and explains the behavior of verificationLevel and qualityCapture in detail, including what 'silence' does in each mode. It omits return value details, but the provided behavioral context goes well beyond a basic create tool.

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 a single paragraph but front-loaded with the main purpose and usage. It uses semicolons to compactly list verificationLevel options, and every sentence adds value—there is no fluff. Length is justified by the complexity of the delivery-verification overrides, though a list format could improve scannability.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the creation flow, prerequisites, and tricky enum semantics well, but it does not mention the return value or cover several parameters (e.g., modalidad, isDiscoverable, apiKey). Given the tool's complexity, the description is helpful but not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description explicitly explains only two parameters (verificationLevel, qualityCapture) with deep semantic meaning. It also implies providerId may be discouraged since it directs users to service_assign_provider instead. However, many important parameters (price, duration, currency, modalidad, isDiscoverable) receive no explanation, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new bookable service in an existing organization.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming admin_create_service for initial setup and service_assign_provider for linking providers, which shows the tool's specific role in the service lifecycle.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('day-to-day service management') and when not to ('For initial org setup, prefer admin_create_service instead'). It also provides the next step ('After creating, use service_assign_provider to link providers') and notes the auth requirement (X-Org-Api-Key), giving clear context relative to alternatives.

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