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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds what the annotations cannot: only ACTIVE services are returned, results mirror the customer-facing Catalogue view, and services with multiple prices fan out into pricing levels. That last point is a real behavioural gotcha (service_ids book the first price, pricing_level_ids a chosen one) that would otherwise cause silent wrong bookings.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its fields, and every sentence carries distinct information (scope, location workflow, pricing-level caveat, downstream tool routing). The opening fragment "Services of the business with category, duration and price" slightly pre-empts the fuller second sentence, a minor redundancy in an otherwise dense, well-ordered block.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does: category, duration in minutes, price, online-bookable flag, plus the pricing-level nesting. Combined with the two documented parameters and the booking-workflow caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this and to use the result 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% and the schema already states that location_id comes from list_team_members and defaults to the business's first location, so the description largely restates it. The 'search' parameter is not mentioned in the description at all. Baseline 3 is the right call when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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+resource: "Lists the active services of one location as the Catalogue shows them, with their category, duration in minutes, price and whether clients can book them online." That clearly separates it from list_clients, list_team_members, list_sales and find_available_slots, and it names the fields returned so an agent knows the shape of the data without opening anything else.

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?

Gives concrete routing: for a multi-location business pass location_id "from list_team_members" and reuse the same location_id when booking, and "Use service_id in find_available_slots and create_appointment." That names the upstream source of an argument and the two downstream siblings, which is exactly the kind of chaining guidance an agent needs to sequence calls.

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