List SMM services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so well: returns a potentially huge list, requires a query for relevance, and strictly enforces min/max server-side. It adds operational context beyond the schema, such as the scale of data and server-side refusal of invalid orders. It does not mention response format or sorting, but those are minor given the tool's simple list nature.

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 sentences, each with a clear job: defining the resource/data, warning about the need for a query, and noting server-side enforcement. The most critical usage guidance (always pass a query) is front-loaded in the second sentence and reinforced with concrete examples. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 description tells an agent what the tool returns (rate and min/max size), how to call it effectively (query required, optional limit), and a key behavioral constraint (server-side enforcement). There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about response fields (IDs, names, categories) would improve completeness, but the description covers the essentials for correct invocation.

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%: both limit and query are already explained in the input schema. The description adds useful emphasis that query should always be passed and warns about unfiltered results, but it does not provide new syntactic or semantic parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 specifies a unique resource—social-media services (followers, views, likes)—and the key data returned: rate per 1000 and min/max order size. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_premium_products and search_catalog by narrowing to SMM services. Even without the verb 'list', the title plus the implied return of a list makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides strong context on how to use the tool: ALWAYS pass a query because there are ~7,500 services and an unfiltered list is enormous and mostly irrelevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool in favor of siblings, but the SMM-specific framing makes the intended usage clear.

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