List services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new context: names and descriptions are the practice's own text and are redacted unless include_contact_details is set. That discloses a data-handling trait beyond the annotations. It does not cover pagination behavior beyond the schema cursor, so not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the sibling linkage, then the filter note. Dense but every sentence carries information. Slightly packed phrasing costs it the top mark.

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 burden of describing return values, and it does so (fields, variants, price in minor units). It also flags the redaction caveat. It omits pagination/volume expectations and edge cases, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining the consequence of include_contact_details (stops redacting emails, phones, NHS numbers, postcodes) and by reiterating the is_bookable_online filter. This enriches the schema rather than merely restating it.

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 the resource (the Organization's services) and enumerates the returned shape (duration, online-bookable flag, tax rate, variants with id, price in minor units, clinician, location). It also links to siblings by stating variant ids are what find_availability and create_booking take, so an agent can tell what this tool feeds. The verb 'list' is only implicit in the noun phrase, keeping it short of a perfect 5.

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 line 'Variant ids are what find_availability and create_booking take' gives clear workflow context: call this before those tools to obtain variant ids. It also points at the is_bookable_online filter. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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