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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds non-obvious coverage semantics: results come "from saved versions" only, endpoints appear "when recorded," and "Services in the unsaved list could not be checked." That last sentence flags a real completeness limitation an agent must not overlook; it is terse but materially useful.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage trigger, then the alternative, then the caveat — a sensible priority order with no filler. It is dense and slightly clause-heavy in the opening sentence, and the caveat about unsaved services reads as an afterthought rather than being integrated, but nothing is 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, alternative, and result content sufficiently (it implies affected services and teams are returned). The only mild gap is that the shape of the returned dependency data (endpoint-level vs event-level records) is not spelled out, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains service_id and where to get it (Catalog ID line or list_services). The description says "a given service" but adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ("find every service that depends on a given service") and immediately qualifies the two dependency kinds covered: synchronous endpoints and events. It also names the sibling it is not (find_event_consumers), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Call before changing or removing an endpoint or the service itself"), an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it ("For a change to one specific event, use find_event_consumers instead"), and even states what to do with the results ("report the affected services and teams to the user").

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