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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that rows are rendered from live product cards and that services without a card show 'unavailable'. This helps set expectations about data freshness and missing data, which the annotations do not convey. A slight deduction for not explaining the 'session' parameter's role in this context, but that is covered in the 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that fronts the main purpose and enriches with the note about live rendering. It is compact and to the point, with no wasted words. The only minor issue is that it doesn't replace the need for parameter explanations, but as a standalone description it is concise.

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 is read-only with no output schema, so the description adequately covers what the tool returns. However, given the low parameter coverage (7/10 params undocumented), an agent may not know how to use 'q' or 'audience' effectively, which could lead to incorrect invocation. The note about product cards helps but does not fully mitigate the parameter ambiguity. Overall, it is adequate for a browse tool but not 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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'session' has a description). The description does not explain the 'q' or 'audience' parameters at all. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it does not: it only mentions the data returned and gives no hint about how 'q' filters or what 'audience' does. This is a significant gap.

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 it lists federated services with specific fields (name, job, datasets, tool/workflow counts, tiers, enabled status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like datailo_tools (which likely lists tools) by focusing on the service catalogue. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling to compare against, so it gets a 4 rather than 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?

It implies usage for browsing available services, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like datailo_tools or datailo_describe. There is no explicitly stated 'when not to use' or alternative names, only implicit context from the field list. A clearer routing to siblings would improve this.

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