list_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List services' and lists return fields, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or if pagination/rate limits apply. This is a significant gap given the absence of annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List services'), and includes only essential information: the resource, the return fields, and the parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant details.

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 description covers purpose, return fields, and the single parameter's meaning. However, it lacks notes on pagination, error handling, or authentication, which would be useful for a complete picture. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 only defines service_type as a string with default 'NBN'. The description adds critical semantics by specifying the allowed values: 'NBN' (default) or 'all'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 lists services on the AussieBB account and specifies the exact fields returned (service_id, site alias, plan, speed tier, address, WAN IPs). This distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools, which are focused on diagnostics and tests.

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 establishes a clear context for use: whenever the agent needs to list account services. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are for diagnostics, making the use case unambiguous.

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