List services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: contact details in names, descriptions, and question text are redacted unless include_contact_details is set. That redaction behavior is not derivable from the schema or annotations and is the kind of context this dimension rewards.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and the returned fields, with the redaction caveat placed last as a conditional. Every clause carries information; the only minor cost is that the field enumeration runs long.

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 enumerates the returned fields, and it discloses the redaction behavior an agent must know before interpreting results. Pagination via the start/next_start contract and the filter behavior are left to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves a small 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%, so all four parameters are already documented (including start as next_start chaining and the ids filter semantics), establishing the baseline of 3. The description only reinforces the include_contact_details flag rather than adding format or range detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names the resource (services) and enumerates the concrete fields returned (name, category, booking type, occupancy, durations with prices, buffers, booking questions), which is far more specific than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_service or list_service_categories.

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 never says when to use this tool versus find_available_intervals, get_service, or list_service_categories. It implies bulk listing but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing guidance.

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