podyx_v1_list_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description is free to add operational detail — and it does: the studio is resolved from the API key (not the request), tenant selectors are silently ignored, and pagination defaults and caps are spelled out. That is genuinely useful behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations. The final sentence about quotes not reserving a slot or locking a price is irrelevant to a list operation and muddies rather than clarifies behavior.

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 useful facts (auth-resolved studio, ignored tenant selectors, pagination defaults, follow pagination) are packed densely, which is good. But the lead is a raw operation ID + URL fragment and the close is a non-sequitur about quotes and price locks that does not belong in a read-only list tool, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers access scoping, defaults, and caps adequately, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema the agent has no signal about what a service record contains or what order results come in, and include_inactive behavior is unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% on a nested query object, so the description must compensate. It does partially, restating page-1 and 20-per-page defaults and the 100 cap (matching the schema's per_page note), but include_inactive is never mentioned and no parameter is described in terms of effect on results. That leaves a real gap even though the covered parameters align with 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("listServices", GET /api/v1/services) and adds useful scoping: the authenticated key resolves the studio. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually. It loses a point for opening with a raw operation ID/HTTP path rather than a plain statement, and for not distinguishing itself from the near-identically named sibling podyx_list_service or podyx_get_service.

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?

"Tenant selectors supplied in the request are ignored" and "Read/preview only" imply how to call it, and "Follow all pagination" gives a procedural instruction. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over podyx_list_service or podyx_get_service, no prerequisites, and the trailing sentence about quotes suggests content carried over from a different tool rather than usage guidance for this one.

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