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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are one-line summaries grouped into 'lookups that run instantly' and 'requirements you can send', which is useful context but does not say how many items appear or what happens on an empty result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core purpose arrives first. The trailing colon clause is slightly cryptic in phrasing but does add the two-category framing rather than padding.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies most of what an agent needs: the resource, the summary-level detail, and the two categories of items. It could go further by stating that describe_proposition should follow for full detail, which is the main remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline is 4. The clause about instant lookups versus sendable requirements adds a little framing about what the listed items are, though it is really return-value information rather than parameter meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List Joinery's services') and states the granularity of what comes back ('with a one-line summary'). It implicitly contrasts with describe_proposition by emphasizing one-line summaries, but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied: an agent can guess this is the entry-point catalog and that describe_proposition should be used for depth, and submit_request for sending a requirement. Neither the when-not case nor the alternative is stated explicitly.

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