list_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden: it makes clear this is a read-only enumeration over a restricted set of services. It says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, or result size limits, which matters for a catalog-listing call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then the follow-on usage, then the filter semantics. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still names the returned fields. For a one-parameter read-only lookup it is nearly complete, missing only auth or result-size context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that `query` filters by substring on id/name/category, which is more than the bare schema reveals. That is the only parameter and it is fully characterized.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List Huawei Cloud services') plus a scoping qualifier ('that have a price calculator') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling supported_services, which an agent might confuse it with.

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?

It clearly states the downstream use: 'Use the returned `service` id ... in the other tools', with concrete example ids, which tells an agent when this tool is the starting point. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives such as supported_services.

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