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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context: the full status vocabulary, the meaning of 'held', the fields returned for databases, and the fact that database passwords are not included and require get_database_credentials.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what fields are returned. The status enumeration and password pointer each add distinct value without repetition.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and clear read-only annotations, the description covers what the agent needs: the resource listed, the status values, key returned fields, and how to obtain database credentials. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the account's hosted services, with concrete examples (databases, n8n, Uptime Kuma, other apps) and returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_service or list_domains.

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?

Usage is mostly implied by the listing purpose. The description does give one explicit alternative, telling the agent to use get_database_credentials for a database password, but it does not state when to use list_services versus get_service or other service-related siblings.

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