services_get_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint path: no pagination behavior, no default result size, no note that it returns the full account service set. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a thin addition.

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?

Two short lines with no filler, and the operation statement comes first. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, and the bare endpoint path adds little for an agent that already has the tool name.

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?

The tool has four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no pagination or filtering guidance, and the description fills none of these gaps. For a list endpoint whose correctness depends on limit/offset and filter semantics, the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and all four parameters (sort, limit, filter, offset) are undocumented in both schema and description. Nothing explains the accepted values for sort, the filter syntax, or the maximum limit, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 states a verb and resource ("Get services list") plus the underlying endpoint GET /services, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this from the many sibling list/read tools (services_get_by_id, services_get_expiring, services_get_stats) or state the scope of services returned, so it is only minimally clarifying beyond the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as services_get_by_id for a single service or the filtered variants, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the unfiltered enumeration endpoint.

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