List service policies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds that the tool lists both service states and the service catalog, which is useful but not deep behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, clear, and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds a practical use case. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (single parameter, no output schema) and the description covers the purpose and a key use case. Given the annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, the description is sufficient. It could mention the output format, but it's not essential for a listing tool.

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?

The single parameter 'profile' is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the description adds no additional parameter info. The description implicitly indicates the profile is used to resolve names to IDs, but the schema already states 'Exact profile name or profile ID'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'list_profile_services' lists profile service states and the service catalog, and mentions a use case (resolving names to IDs). It is specific about the result (states + catalog) and differentiates from siblings like list_profiles and list_profile_rules. However, it could be more explicit about the distinction from 'set_service_policy'.

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 gives a clear when-to-use: 'Use this to resolve names such as YouTube to exact IDs.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context implies it is for reading state and catalog, as opposed to modifying (e.g., set_service_policy) or listing other entities. This is sufficient for a read-only listing tool.

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