owlvin_services

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns a list of services with operations and per-call costs, and serves as a discovery mechanism. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: three sentences that each earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second details the return value, and the third provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further. This is adequate for a discovery tool with no complex inputs or behavioral risks.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the description adds value beyond 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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List all available services') and resources ('services on the Owlvin platform with pricing'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like owlvin_pricing by focusing on service discovery rather than pricing details alone, and from owlvin_call by being informational rather than operational.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover what tools are available before calling them.' This provides clear guidance to use it for discovery purposes, distinguishing it from operational siblings like owlvin_call or owlvin_aeo_optimize, and suggests it as a prerequisite for informed tool selection.

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