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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the output details and 'real-time' nature, but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or mention any error/edge-case behavior. It does not contradict anything; it's adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and output in under 20 words. No filler or repetition.

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 simple status-checking tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what will be returned (replica count, running, health) but doesn't mention failure modes or the need for authentication, which would make it fully robust.

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 describes the 'app' parameter as 'App ID (UUID) or subdomain,' giving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional detail about the parameter beyond referencing 'an app,' so it adds nothing 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the resource as 'Docker service status for an app.' It enumerates the exact data points (replica count, running state, health check status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app or get_app_metrics.

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 – when you need real-time status of an app's Docker service. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_app_metrics or get_app, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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