List upcoming (skippable) services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing the exact fields returned and that skipped items are included ('currently scheduled or already skipped'). 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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first states the core action and scope, and the second adds the read-only boundary and routing hint. Every clause earns its place, and key identifiers are front-loaded.

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 and zero parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent gets back. It covers the essential fields (rid, clid, service date, scheduled/skipped status). Minor omissions like ordering or date range are acceptable given the openWorldHint and the read-only nature.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, but it usefully explains what the return items contain.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('upcoming scheduled collection days from the service calendar'), and the exact payload each result carries ('rid, clid', service date, status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crowntown_skip_service and crowntown_list_service_history.

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 explicitly frames the tool as read-only and directs the agent to crowntown_skip_service for mutations ('to actually skip/unskip'). It does not explicitly differentiate from get_pickup_schedule or list_service_history, but the skip-related purpose and pointer to the mutation sibling are enough to guide selection.

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