get_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the specific types of data retrieved (retainers, tiers, deliverables, etc.), which provides context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or default filtering behavior. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence, front-loads the verb, and enumerates the content types without redundancy. It is concise and to the point, with no filler.

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 simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It lists the data types returned, and the schema handles the filter parameter. It does not explicitly mention the filtering capability, but the schema does, so nothing critical is missing. A minor gap is the lack of return format details, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward.

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% – the tier parameter is fully described in the schema ('Filter by engagement model') with an enum. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter or its values. Since the schema already documents it, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource (platform engineering advisory retainers, fractional leadership tiers, deliverables, commitments, transparent rates). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_skills, get_profile, and get_certifications, which cover different domains.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description – it is for retrieving services data. There is no explicit mention of when to use this over other tools, nor any exclusions. Since the purpose is self-evident and siblings are clearly separate topics, implied usage is acceptable, but it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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