t2000_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns services with URLs, endpoints, descriptions, and prices, and is clearly a read-only discovery operation. No side effects or destructive actions are mentioned. It could be improved by noting any limitations or prerequisites.

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 purpose then usage guidelines. It is somewhat lengthy due to the extensive list of services, but this adds value for the agent. Could be slightly more concise but remains effective.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides thorough context: purpose, usage sequence with t2000_pay, and a detailed catalog of services. It is complete for the tool's intended use.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Discover available MPP services the agent can pay for with t2000_pay.' It specifies the verb 'discover' and the resource 'MPP services', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like t2000_pay.

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.' It provides detailed guidance on when to prefer this tool and t2000_pay over built-in tools, and includes a comprehensive list of MPP services.

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