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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral hint about translating names to IDs, implying the output includes names and IDs. However, it does not disclose details like default behavior with no parameters, ordering, or pagination. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as it adds limited extra behavior context.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states what it does; the second adds a concrete use case. No redundant information or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the resource types and the primary use case (translating names to IDs). However, it doesn't explicitly state that calling with no parameters returns all service bodies, which could be inferred from the schema but is not directly stated. Slight gap, but overall adequate.

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%, with each parameter (include_parents, include_children, service_body_ids, root_server_url) having its own description. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because none exist in the schema.

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 'List' with a clear resource 'BMLT service bodies,' and clarifies the domain with synonyms (zones, regions, areas, groups). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (list_formats, list_root_servers) by focusing on a different resource, and even connects to search_meetings by explaining the ID translation use case.

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 description provides explicit context: it is useful for translating human-readable names like 'Northern California Region' into service body IDs for search_meetings. This implies when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives. The mention of search_meetings gives a clear connection to a sibling tool, but no direct exclusions are stated.

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