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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the output contents (duration, price, add-ons) and a concrete auth prerequisite ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'). It omits pagination/result-size behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the opening sentence and the next two sentences are largely redundant, restating that this is a per-location service menu and repeating 'duration, price and add-ons' twice. Trimming to one purpose sentence plus the workflow/auth notes would lose nothing.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, the key returned fields, downstream usage, and auth needs. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only pagination/ordering behavior left unaddressed.

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 both parameters and their semantics (category filter, location_id default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the category grouping but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (lists) and resource (service menu of one location), plus scope ('one location grouped by category') and what each entry contains (duration, price, add-ons). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like meevo_list_locations or meevo_list_packages, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against them.

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 downstream workflow guidance ('Use service_id with find_open_slots and book_appointment'), which implies the tool's role, and notes the auth requirement. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g. list_packages, list_locations), so the routing guidance is only implied.

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