List resources (staff, rooms)

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

Annotations declare readOnly and openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: email/phone/address are redacted unless include_contact_details is set, and names/descriptions are also redacted otherwise.

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 tight sentences, contents front-loaded, then filtering purpose, then the conditional-return caveat. No filler.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (services, groups) and the conditional contact fields; pagination/sorting are left to the well-documented schema, a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents include_contact_details redaction and the service/ids filters; the description mostly restates this, adding only the intent of service filtering. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resource (staff, rooms, equipment) plus the enrichment returned (assigned services, resource groups), which cleanly separates it from list_services, list_resource_groups and find_customers siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete use case (filter by service to find who can deliver it) and a prerequisite for contact data, but does not state when to prefer find_available_intervals/find_available_dates or any exclusions.

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