List public services

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructiveness, so safety is covered. The description contributes no behavioral detail beyond that—nothing about pagination iteration, ordering, response shape, or side effects—so it adds little transparency beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loads the purpose in one sentence, and then presents a compact args list where each line earns its place. No redundant prose or repetition of schema defaults.

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 read-only paginated list with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns at a conceptual level and what each argument controls. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without needing extra return-value or safety detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining every parameter: publisher_identifier's source from list_publishers, language's effect on titles and descriptions, page as 1-based, and page_size's range. This is meaningfully more than the bare schema types and defaults, though the definitions are terse.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('registered public services'), with a helpful parenthetical explaining what public services are. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_data_services, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'registered public services (administrative offerings for citizens)' implies this is the tool for administrative offerings, and the mention of list_publishers suggests a workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. Usage is inferred from the name and description rather than stated.

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