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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('View') and specifies the returned fields (listing id, title, price, category, status, completed count). This is adequate for a simple read tool, though it lacks details like pagination or authorization caveats.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and includes return field names. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the filter option, and the return fields. Minor gaps remain (e.g., the meaning of 'completed count' and pagination behavior), but overall it is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, and the description adds only 'optional status filter,' which is already conveyed by the schema's default value and enum. The description does not materially augment the parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and clearly identifies the resource ('your own service listings') with an optional status filter. This distinguishes it from siblings like agentlux_service_browse (which views all listings) and agentlux_resale_my_listings (which is for resale, not service).

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?

The phrase 'your own' implies the tool is for viewing the authenticated user's listings, which provides context but no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Unlike the highest-caliber examples, it does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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