List Series

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, covering key safety traits. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return content ('title, artwork, and plan count'), error behavior ('Error: Resource not found'), and output format options, which helps the agent understand practical usage without contradicting 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 efficiently structured: it starts with the core purpose, lists parameters with brief clarifications, and ends with return and error info. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and errors, though it lacks output schema details (e.g., structure of the list). The annotations handle behavioral aspects well, making this sufficient for effective use.

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 each parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description repeats some parameter info (e.g., 'response_format' options) but adds minimal extra meaning, such as noting 'service_type_id' comes from another tool. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant enhancement.

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 ('List') and resource ('sermon/service series in Planning Center Services'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'pco_list_service_types' or 'pco_list_plans' that might also list related resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 implied usage guidance by noting that 'service_type_id' should be obtained from 'pco_list_service_types', suggesting a workflow dependency. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions compared to other list tools, leaving the agent to infer context from parameter requirements.

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