search_service_watchdogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'with pagination', which is a behavioral trait but it is also fully evident from the input schema's page and page_size parameters. No additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authentication, or response format) is provided, but given the annotation coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond what is already known.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately provides the essential purpose. It uses no filler words and is front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by the key detail about pagination. Perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given that this is a simple search tool, the description combined with the annotated read-only hint, fully documented input schema, and presence of an output schema provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. A minor gap is that it does not explain what a 'service watchdog' is or explicitly state that it returns a list of watchdogs, but for a domain-aware agent this is unnecessary. The description is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (page, sort_by, page_size). The description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not compensate with examples, allowed values, or relationships between parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'service watchdogs', providing a specific and unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'manage_service_watchdog' (which implies modification) and 'search_services' (different resource), making the tool's role clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a read-only list/search operation compared to 'manage_service_watchdog' which modifies watchdogs, nor does it state any preconditions or relationship to other search tools. The context is implied only by the sibling names, not explicitly stated.

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