List services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields (id, name, billable flag, archived flag, note) and the fact that the full list comes back unpaged. No auth or rate-limit notes, but nothing misleading.

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?

Three compact statements: what it lists, why to use it, and what comes back – front-loaded with the purpose. Slightly dense semicolon phrasing, but every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies return fields and pagination behavior, which is everything an agent needs to call and interpret it. Annotations carry the safety profile.

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% and the single `archived` parameter is fully documented there with its default. The description restates the active-vs-archived behavior, which reinforces but does not add new syntax or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Lists services (activity types) from mite') with the scope spelled out as active vs archived. The parenthetical synonym 'activity types' removes domain ambiguity, and the tool is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools like mite_list_customers or mite_list_projects.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to look up service ids for filters such as `service_id` in `mite_list_time_entries`, which routes the agent to the right downstream tool. It stops short of naming a when-not case, but there is no competing services tool in the sibling set, so the guidance is practically complete.

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