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 burden. It states the tool returns a list of services (read-only operation) and details the relationship with t2000_pay. It does not mention side effects or other behavioral traits, but for a discovery tool the description is sufficient and implies a safe, non-destructive action.

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 somewhat long but well-structured with an initial clear statement of purpose, followed by usage guidance, then a detailed list of services. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed. The key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description is comprehensive. It explains the tool's purpose, relationship to sibling tools, and provides an exhaustive list of service categories, enabling the agent to understand the tool's scope and context fully.

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 with 100% coverage (none needed). The description does not need to add parameter meaning and correctly implies no parameters are required. The baseline of 4 applies as the description adds no unnecessary information.

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 tool 'Discover available MPP services the agent can pay for with t2000_pay' and specifies the return data including URLs, endpoints, descriptions, and prices. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like t2000_pay by indicating this is the discovery step.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this BEFORE t2000_pay to find the right URL and request format' and provides extensive guidance on when to prefer t2000_pay over built-in tools, listing numerous service categories. This provides clear context and alternatives.

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