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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it returns every service on the menu (implying no pagination) and explicitly states the Cotlet API key with app access is required.

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 first sentence ('Your service menu with duration, price, and the team members who offer each service') and the second ('Returns every service on your menu with its ID, duration and price, plus the team members who offer it') largely restate the same content, spending one sentence on redundancy. The later sentences about IDs and the API key are front-loaded enough to be useful.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the returned fields, where the IDs flow next, and the auth requirement. It does not describe ordering or limits, but those are minor for a menu listing.

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, and the schema coverage baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool requires no input filtering.

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 (List) and resource (services) and enumerates the returned fields: ID, duration, price, and offering team members. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_open_slots and book_appointment by explaining its role as the source of the IDs those tools consume.

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 gives clear workflow context: 'Use the IDs in find_open_slots and book_appointment' and 'Team member IDs from here go into every provider_id parameter.' That effectively tells the agent when this tool is the right starting point, though it never states an explicit exclusion or alternative for listing services.

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