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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so it's a write operation. The description adds that it sets duration, price, capacity, and policies, giving some sense of what side effects occur. However, it doesn't describe any validation, immediate persistence, or permissions, though with annotations present, the bar is lower. This is average transparency.

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, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence earns its place. The first states the purpose, the second gives a useful prerequisite tip. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (20 params, output schema exists), the description is minimal but sufficient for selection. The schema fully documents parameters, and the description adds a prerequisite hint. It doesn't explain all possible relationships (e.g., allowedTierIds dependency) but those are in the schema, so the context is adequately complete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into 'duration, price, capacity, and policies' but doesn't add specific meaning beyond what each schema property already describes. It provides a high-level summary but no extra semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's primary action: 'Create a bookable service.' It specifies key attributes it sets (duration, price, capacity, policies) and distinguishes it from related sibling tools like create_service_category or create_service_schedule by focusing on the service entity itself.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite usage: 'Use list_service_categories first if you want to attach to an existing category.' This gives clear context for when to call another tool. It doesn't discuss exclusions or alternative tools, but the prerequisite is valuable and the overall context is clear.

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