list_deal_services

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds behavioral context by framing this as part of a timesheet workflow, implying it is a read-only listing operation. It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond them.

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 workflow step and then provides the full workflow. It is concise and helpful, though the workflow listing could be considered slightly redundant if the agent has context from previous steps.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but the context implies it returns a list of services. The workflow guidance provides enough completeness for an agent to understand when and why to use this tool.

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% (both parameters are described). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only implies that deal_id is required, which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 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 it is STEP 3 of a timesheet workflow and specifies the action: 'Get services for a specific deal/budget.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services or list_project_services by tying it to a deal context.

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 explicitly provides the complete workflow steps, telling the agent when to use this tool (after list_project_deals, before list_project_tasks) and what to optionally do after. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare with alternative tools like list_project_services.

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