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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's auth-scope requirement is a genuinely useful addition. It still omits whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, what dry_run does, and whether the edit is reversible.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the auth requirement. No wasted words.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation depth, the description covers only scope. Missing are field-edit semantics, dry_run behavior, and any indication of the return value or error conditions.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no enums, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about id, name, rate, notes, dry_run, or is_active. Only the resource being edited is implied, leaving every parameter undocumented.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('service listings') scoped to the human's own listings. It is distinguishable from list_services and offer_service, though it never names those siblings or contrasts with them.

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?

Provides one real precondition ('Requires the services:write scope'), which implies this is a mutation needing elevated auth. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over offer_service or list_services, nor when not to use it.

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