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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: services are 'free, deterministic', and each carries a 'method' (exact|heuristic|lossy) indicating trustworthiness. This goes beyond the schema by disclosing the trust model, though it does not explicitly state it's a read operation.

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: first conveys purpose with extensive examples, second provides filter option and next step. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key action ('List') is front-loaded.

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 list tool without output schema, the description explains the output includes a 'method' field, but does not fully describe the return format (e.g., if it includes names, descriptions). Minor gaps exist, but the description is largely sufficient for an AI agent to understand what to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete category examples (e.g., 'json', 'text', 'agent', 'time') and linking them to the service catalog, which aids in proper parameter usage.

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 'List the free, deterministic utility services any agent can call here' and provides numerous examples, making the purpose and scope unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like aicom_run_service and aicom_describe_service by mentioning the next step.

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 implies usage as a preliminary step before calling aicom_run_service and mentions optional filtering by category. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like aicom_describe_service.

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