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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses what fields are returned, that services are listed for every venue even without online booking, and that `bookableViaMcp: false` means `id` is null and booking must fall back to `bookingUrl` or the venue page. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral 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 multi-sentence but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically moves through parameter guidance, return fields, and the booking fallback caveat — no filler or redundant repetition.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it enumerates returned fields, explains the `bookableViaMcp`/`id` null behavior, and gives the user a concrete fallback path. The tool is simple enough that all relevant operational context is covered.

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?

Although the schema already covers the single parameter, the description adds important semantics: it says `place_slug` comes from `search_places`, explicitly contrasts venue vs directory services, and warns that omitting it yields a different (often empty) result. This goes well beyond the schema's generic description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List a venue's services — what it offers, with price and duration." It also distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools by noting that it is "the only form whose serviceId works with create_booking."

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: pass `place_slug` from `search_places` for a venue, and notes this is "what you want in almost every case." It also explains when not to use it, when omitting `place_slug` lists the directory's own services (which most sites do not have), and connects to `create_booking` and `bookingUrl` fallback behavior.

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