list_services

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: results may be cached for up to 5 minutes, which matters for freshness expectations. It stops short of describing ordering, size limits, or pagination of the result set.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose leads, the caching caveat and the sibling pointer follow in priority order.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, freshness, and the key alternative. A brief note on result shape or scale (how many services, whether unpaginated) would close the remaining gap.

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% and the single boolean with_drafts is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, such as whether drafts are excluded by default in downstream behavior.

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 specific verb and resource ('List services') plus what is returned ('configuration and dates'), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_service for single-service detail. An agent can distinguish this from get_service without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_service when one service's full detail is needed, which is a clear usage split. It does not state when to use list vs. other list siblings (e.g. configs_list) or how with_drafts should factor into the decision, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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