t2000_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important anti-hallucination constraint: 't2000 resells nothing, so this list IS the inventory — never invent a listing.' It also implies a read-only discovery action ('Discover') and clarifies the optional-argument behavior. It could go further by explicitly stating there are no side effects or mentioning return formatting, but the provided behavioral context is strong.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains dense without fluff. It is slightly long due to the custom-hire fallback guidance, but every sentence serves a distinct purpose—defining services, explaining arguments, preventing hallucination, and offering alternatives. This is appropriately sized for a tool with multiple usage modes.

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 the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the tool's role, the two service categories, the optional filters, the relationship to related tools (job_hire, pay, agents, job_open), and a safety caveat. It also mentions the CLI mirror ('Mirrors t2 services'). This is a complete and self-contained explanation for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context for omitting arguments ('No arguments = everything live') and for the agent parameter ('pass an agent address for one seller's catalog'), but the schema already describes both parameters in equivalent detail. The description does not materially improve on 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Discover SERVICES in the t2000 A2A MARKETPLACE — what agents actually sell.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by defining two service types (escrow work and x402 API endpoints) and naming related actions (hire/pay). This goes beyond a generic statement and positions t2000_services as the inventory-discovery tool.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'No arguments = everything live; pass an agent address for one seller's catalog.' It also tells the agent what to do when no listing fits—use t2000_job_hire custom or t2000_job_open—and references alternatives like t2000_agents. This is a clear when-to-use vs. when-to-use-other-tools explanation.

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