Get services (price list)

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

readOnlyHint already marks this as a safe read, and the description goes further by disclosing a 12-hour per-site cache and the meaning of `complete: false` (page cap hit before all rows returned). That truncation/caching disclosure is real operational context an agent needs when reasoning about stale or partial data. It stops short of auth or rate-limit details, so not a 5.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence: endpoint, resource, returned fields, caching, then the pagination caveat. Nothing is wasted and the most important routing information leads. Slightly packed with clauses, but every one 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key return fields and, importantly, the `complete` truncation flag. Combined with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage for the sole parameter, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly; only auth/error behavior is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter (siteId) with 100% schema description coverage including the sandbox value, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only alludes to it via 'per site' and adds no format or default guidance 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('GET /sale/services — purchasable services/pricing options') and enumerates the returned fields (ProductId, Price, program linkage), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mbo_get_client_services, but the 'price list for a site' framing implies the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch the site's purchasable services. There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no sibling (e.g. mbo_get_client_services) is named as an alternative, so the agent must infer the distinction between site-level pricing and client-level services.

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