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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating results are paginated and sourced from the Panel database, plus per-country availability, but it does not clarify pagination defaults, response behavior, or availability semantics beyond 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the essential information—paginated, catalog, per-country availability, and data source—without filler. It earns its place and remains readable.

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 read-only query tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the core behavior is reasonably covered. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and leaves the meaning of 'per-country availability' ambiguous—especially since there is no country parameter in the input 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description names none of the five parameters except indirectly through 'paginated'. The parameter names (page, limit, search, sortBy, sortOrder) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for search and sort behavior.

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 identifies the resource unambiguously: a paginated Ucode service catalog with per-country availability sourced from the Panel database. The absence of an explicit verb is mitigated by 'catalog' clearly implying a list/retrieve operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling catalog-like tools such as ucode_sms_services.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ucode_render_services or ucode_sms_services. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, forcing the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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