gov_list_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context beyond the name by clarifying the relationship with gov_query and the return fields. The explicit 'FREE — no payment' is a helpful behavioral trait. It does not mention authentication or error behavior, but for a simple listing tool, the essentials are covered.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add a crucial cost note. Every word earns its place, with no redundant elaboration.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core necessity: what the tool does and what fields are returned. Slightly more detail about the output format (e.g., JSON array of objects) would elevate it to a 5, but the given information is sufficient for an agent to use it effectively.

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 already provides a complete description for the only parameter (category: 'Optional filter: data | search | maps.'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter's usage or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so no score above baseline is warranted.

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 function: 'List all SuVerse government services callable via gov_query'. It identifies the specific verb (list), the resource (SuVerse government services), and even enumerates the returned fields (id, category, description, params). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov_query (which queries a specific service) and other data tools.

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 implies a clear use case: to discover which services are available to call via gov_query. The note 'FREE — no payment' serves as a guideline suggesting it is a low-cost way to explore services. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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