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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the catalog/filter intent, but nothing about result shape, result volume, or how the fixed 'kind: site' enum constrains the listing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the use case, then the one parameter worth calling out. No filler or 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?

For a read-only, paginated catalog listing with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description covers what and when adequately; there is no output schema to explain returns. Pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but the only 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (kind, lang, page, size, query) are already documented. The description only reiterates the `query` substring-on-name behavior with an example, adding marginal value over the schema's own wording.

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?

Specific verb ('Browse') plus a well-defined resource ('catalog of PCP services'), with the expansion of the PCP acronym. It implicitly separates itself from list_site_pcp_services by framing this as discovering services 'available to add to a site', but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 states a clear context for use ('to discover services available to add to a site'), which tells an agent this is a pre-attachment discovery tool rather than a listing of already-configured services. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given.

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