Services and pricing

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context by indicating that prices are fixed and that duration information is included. However, it does not disclose response shape, ordering, or other behavioral traits; for a simple read-only catalog this gap is minor.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the resource and its key attributes with no filler. Every word earns its place and the structure is immediately parsable.

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?

For a parameterless read-only tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the return content (services, fixed price, duration). Additional details like currency or list format would improve precision, but the low complexity means nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. It instead explains what the output covers, which satisfies the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 a concrete resource (services) and defines it by three output facets: what can be hired, at what fixed price, and how long it takes. This is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like list_skills or get_profile, even though no sibling names are mentioned.

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 phrasing 'what can be hired' implies use when a user is asking about services or pricing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternative tools. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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