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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: the underlying endpoint (GET /v3/canned_service) and the shape of what comes back (labor, parts, fees, total in cents). It does not mention pagination behavior or result limits, which is the remaining gap.

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 tight sentences with the object definition front-loaded and no filler; the endpoint citation is a small but legitimate addition for developers. No sentence is wasted, though the endpoint reference is marginally redundant for a purely agent-facing definition.

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 read-only, two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and unit (cents). Not stating whether the response is paginated or how many records come back is a minor omission, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with both skip and limit fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('List the shop's canned services') and immediately defines the domain concept as 'reusable job templates like Oil change', so an agent unfamiliar with Shopmonkey terminology still understands the object. It also names the returned content (labor, parts, fees, total in cents), distinguishing it from order/customer list siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call for available service templates, but the description never states when to reach for it (e.g. before building an order or estimate) or what it is not for. No sibling conflicts exist, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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