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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds value by enumerating exactly which fields are returned and which are excluded (service ids, member history, notes, etc.). The 'bounded page' phrasing also signals pagination behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentences with no filler; the core capability and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusion list earns its place by setting expectations about omitted data.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description plus annotations cover purpose, scope, included/excluded fields, and safety. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, and gymId are already fully documented. The description's 'bounded page' wording lightly reinforces pagination but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource (service-catalog names, prices, edit times) plus scope (one tenant-owned GymFlexa gym). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_gyms and get_gym by specifying what is included and excluded.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving a bounded page of service-catalog data for a single gym, which is the relevant context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling names and the 'one tenant-owned gym' scope make the intended use evident.

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