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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which helps, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering; the cursor/paging contract lives only in the schema. Adequate, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the payload, plus a short GraphQL anchor. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned attributes and their units, which an agent needs to interpret results. Pagination is left to the schema, which is reasonable given the full coverage there.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (after, first) are fully documented there with defaults and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the returned fields: name, category, default duration in minutes, default price in cents, and add-on flag. No sibling tool lists services, so the resource alone differentiates it cleanly. The GraphQL mapping ('services') adds a precise anchor.

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 (fetch the service catalog) but never states when to reach for this versus other list tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. For a plain catalogue read, that gap is tolerable, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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