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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: 'View' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses the full return payload including the non-obvious firstHireGuarantee nuance (eligible plus guaranteeReason, including no_identity), which an agent could not infer from the schema. Minor omissions are pagination and result ordering, which are plausible for a personal listing view but not disclosed.

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, tightly written, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first. The second sentence's field enumeration is slightly verbose but earns its place because there is no output schema, so listing the return fields is the only way the agent learns the response shape. No filler or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essential bases: purpose, filter behavior, and exact return fields. The return-field enumeration compensates well for the absent output schema. The only gaps are minor operational details like result limits or ordering, which are reasonable to omit for a compact personal-listing read 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 coverage is 100%: the single status parameter already has an enum (active/inactive/all) and a default described, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of an 'optional status filter' merely restates what the schema already documents, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('View') plus a scoped resource ('your own service listings'), which cleanly separates it from agentlux_service_browse (all listings) and agentlux_resale_my_listings (resale domain). Also states the optional status filter and enumerates the returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool is for.

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 service listings' establishes clear context for when to call this tool: when the agent needs the caller's own offerings rather than the general marketplace. However, it never names sibling alternatives or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., 'for marketplace listings, use agentlux_service_browse'), leaving the differentiation to inference.

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