Mekler Agent Service Discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get a complete ... contract' usefully signals a full-record read, and listing four accepted identifier formats is real behavioral information, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, any auth requirements, and what happens when the identifier doesn't resolve.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource and all accepted identifier forms with no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is being returned ('complete contract') and how to address it. The remaining gap is error/no-match behavior and any auth expectations, which are left unstated.

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 has one parameter 'id' at 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does by naming four acceptable identifier types (slug, operation ID, name, endpoint URL). What it does not add is format/validation detail or behavior on ambiguity or no-match.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (complete public service or operation contract), and enumerates the identifier forms it accepts. It does not explicitly name or contrast with its sibling search_services, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'complete'.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by slug, operation ID, name, or endpoint URL' suggests this is the direct-lookup path when an identifier is already known, versus the sibling search_services for discovery. No explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or alternative is named.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it. It does not state that this is a read-only query, how results are ranked or paginated, or what 'exclusions and useful combinations' actually means in behavior.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than precision. The most valuable information (what to search for, how it differs from get_service) is absent.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the query semantics and routing versus get_service; it does neither. Phrases like 'exclusions' and 'useful combinations' are never grounded, leaving the agent unable to predict results.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description must explain the 'query' input, but it says nothing about what the query should contain (a task description, keywords, an operation name). The mention of 'for a task' hints at task-based input but adds no usable syntax or format detail.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'operations' give a rough idea of a search tool, but 'Mekler paid operations' is unexplained jargon and the trailing phrase 'including exclusions and useful combinations' obscures rather than clarifies the intent. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_service, so an agent must infer that this is the search counterpart.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_service, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only clue is the verb 'Find', which implies retrieval but leaves the choice between the two siblings to inference.

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