getServices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get available services', which implies a read operation, but does not mention return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency beyond the verb itself.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get available services (class packages, memberships)'. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the parameters affect results. It also does not clarify the relationship to similar tools (e.g., getPackages) or the meaning of 'available'. The example parenthetical is helpful but insufficient for a tool in a large sibling context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters; the list of example types ('class packages, memberships') is not tied to specific parameters. It does not compensate for or enhance the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('available services'), with examples 'class packages, memberships' to clarify the domain. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as getPackages or getClientMemberships, so it misses the highest mark for sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. For a tool with many sibling list/get tools, this is a notable gap.

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