list_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable nuance: deliveredPercent is null in the common case and recommends judging by online numbers. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, error cases, or response structure beyond the listed fields, leaving some gaps.

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 reasonably concise at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the tool's output fields, and the second explains an important null case. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes useful information without excessive verbosity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description partially covers the return shape by naming fields. It explains the tricky deliveredPercent null behavior. However, it omits usage context such as the relationship to list_countries, ordering, or pagination, making it only moderately complete for an agent.

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 schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions (search filter and country id from list_countries), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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 resource ('Services available in a country') and lists the returned fields (service code, price, online count, deliveredPercent). While it doesn't use an explicit verb like 'list', the tool name and context make the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools such as list_countries and get_balance.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. It implies usage with a country but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., 'use list_countries first') or situations where another tool would be appropriate. The interpretative note about deliveredPercent is useful but not a usage guideline.

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