list_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 mentions pagination and return format (names and IDs), which is helpful, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation-free tool with zero 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds details about pagination and return format. Every sentence contributes value, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and return format adequately. However, it misses parameter documentation and lacks behavioral context like pagination mechanics or error scenarios, making it incomplete for optimal agent 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving it undocumented. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general context of listing services.

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 ('Berlin administrative services'), specifying it returns a paginated list with names and IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_services' or 'get_services_stats' beyond mentioning it lists 'all available' services.

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 implies usage by stating it lists 'all available' services, suggesting it's for broad retrieval rather than filtering or detailed analysis. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_services' for filtered results or 'get_service_details' for specifics.

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