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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: that the list is empty until services are approved after a safe-file scan. This explains the state and the gating mechanism, which annotations don't provide.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is stated first, followed by the crucial state condition. Everything 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It tells what the tool lists, under what condition, and when it is empty. An agent can decide to call it without additional missing information. Slightly more detail about return structure could be added, but it's not necessary given the simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate. Baseline of 4 for no parameters is correct.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and a specific resource 'request services' with a clear condition ('approved after the safe-file scan'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stripe_offers or get_fulfillment_status, which handle different resources or purposes.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need request services that have been approved. It states the list is empty until services are explicitly approved, giving clear context about the data state. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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