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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the return payload's field semantics and units (minutes for duration, cents for price), which an agent cannot get from an absent output schema. It does not state pagination behavior, though the schema handles that.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields packed in without filler. The trailing "GraphQL: services" is terse and aids API mapping rather than padding.

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 no-required-param list tool with full parameter documentation and a read-only annotation, the description covers purpose and return shape. Only minor gaps remain (no mention that results are paginated or any scoping limits), and the schema already documents pagination.

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% for both parameters (after cursor, first page size with documented 1-100 range and default). The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the service menu) and enumerates exactly what each row carries: name, category, default duration in minutes, default price in cents, and add-on flag. No sibling tool covers services, so the resource alone distinguishes it from boulevard_list_products, boulevard_list_staff, etc.

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 use case is implied by the content it returns (a bookable service menu with durations and prices), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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