list_services

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

Annotations are readOnlyHint: true, which aligns with the read operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating that the tool does not indicate which project/budget a service belongs to, which is useful beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 consists of two highly informative sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical usage note.

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?

For a list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and key behavioral constraints. It explains what the tool does and what it does not do, which is sufficient given the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 100%, with both parameters (company_id, limit) having descriptive text. The description does not add additional parameter details, but given the high coverage, the 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 explicitly states 'List all services in the organization,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that it does not indicate project/budget association, and it offers an alternative workflow for timesheet entries.

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 includes clear guidance: it lists all services, and explicitly advises against using it for timesheet entries, recommending the proper workflow (list_projects → list_project_deals → list_deal_services → create_time_entry). This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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