list_client_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 only restates that the result is hosting services for one client and does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, error behavior, permissions, or side effects.

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 very short, with no filler, and the key scoping information ('one client') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it reads more like a noun-phrase definition than a complete tool instruction.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, this is minimally viable: an agent can infer the basic operation and the required parameter. However, it lacks behavioral details such as response shape or limits and does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like list_client_domains.

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 already documents clientid as an integer 'Client id' with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantic context by saying the services belong to one client, but it does not elaborate on parameter constraints, format, or edge cases.

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 identifies the resource ('hosting services') and the scope ('belong to one client'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_client_domains or list_invoices. It is clear what entity is returned, though it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the tool name 'list' for the action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling list tools, no alternatives are named, and there are no exclusionary conditions. The only implicit cue is 'one client,' which maps to the required clientid parameter.

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