List services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the return shape, including variants, duration, price representations, currency, price type, online booking status, and staff IDs.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the service menu concept and then details the returned fields efficiently. There is minor repetition between 'Your service menu with category, variants...' and 'Reads the services...', but every sentence still contributes useful information.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: name, category, description, online booking, variants, duration, price number/display/currency/type, and staff IDs. It also explains how service_id and variant_id relate to downstream tools, leaving no critical gap 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics and instead focuses on return data and downstream ID usage.

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 states a specific read operation ('Reads the services of the business') and enumerates the returned fields, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_staff or list_clients. It also links the output to create_appointment and find_open_slots via service_id and variant_id, clarifying its role in the workflow.

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 implies when to use it by explaining that create_appointment and find_open_slots require service_id or variant_id from this data. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for services, but the usage context is clear.

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