List Services

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful domain behavior (services belong to a deal/budget, billing type meanings 1=fixed, 2=time and materials, 3=not billable), but says nothing about pagination behavior or what a returned record contains. Adequate but not rich for an unannotated tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition before the filtering and usage guidance. Every sentence carries information; only the billing-type enumeration could be seen as marginally tangential to listing.

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 list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, domain relationships, and a usage trigger. A brief note on pagination/return shape would make it complete, but nothing essential 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%, so page, sort, deal_id and page_size are already documented. The description reinforces deal_id filtering ('Filter by deal/budget ID') and supplies billing-type value semantics, adding a little meaning beyond the schema but not parameter syntax or defaults. 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+resource ('List services (budget line items)') and defines the domain concept and its parent (belongs to a deal/budget). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling productive_list_line_items, which could confuse an agent choosing between them.

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 a clear context of use: 'Use this to find service IDs needed for logging time.' No explicit when-not or named alternatives, but the usage trigger is concrete and actionable.

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