List services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: only active services are listed, results mirror the Catalogue, multi-price services appear as pricing levels, and bookings use the first level.

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 and tightly structured: the opening sentence names the resource and fields, and the second explains catalogue semantics and downstream tool usage. Every sentence carries operational value without padding.

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 compensates by explaining the returned service attributes, active-only scope, multi-price representation, and how service_id is used downstream. No essential calling context is missing for a read-only catalogue list tool.

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%, so the single 'search' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists the active services of the business's location') and enumerates the returned fields: category, duration, price, and online booking availability. It also differentiates itself from adjacent workflows by pointing to find_available_slots and create_appointment for service_id consumption.

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 establishes the context: retrieving the catalogue of active services, including multi-price handling and the rule that bookings use the first pricing level. It does not explicitly name competing sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the downstream usage guidance for service_id is concrete.

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