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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output scope (slugs, descriptions, page URLs) and the keyword-filtering behavior, but it does not address pagination semantics despite the limit/offset parameters existing in the schema. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the resource and output fields, then the keyword usage note. There is no filler or repetition. The only minor ambiguity is that `search` could be read as the sibling search_content tool, but the backticks and schema context make it understandable.

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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description plus structured data is complete. An agent can invoke it correctly: it knows the resource scope, what fields are returned, and how to filter by keyword.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, and search. The description repeats only the search keyword filtering, adding no new parameter-level meaning or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List all residential remodeling services with slugs, descriptions, and page URLs.' The qualifier 'residential' differentiates it from sibling list_commercial_services, and the mention of return fields makes the scope concrete.

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 gives a direct usage instruction: 'Use `search` to find by keyword.' This tells the agent when to apply filtering rather than simply listing everything. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_service or list_commercial_services, but the residential/list framing makes the context reasonably clear.

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