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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that include=['content'] inlines the full pitch, but does not mention any other behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes 'full detail' beyond the include parameter.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and efficiently adds the key parameter behavior. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. However, it could be improved by hinting at the response structure or confirming what 'full detail' includes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: slug is the identifier ('by slug'), and include=['content'] is explained as inlining the full pitch. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves full detail for one service offering by slug, and includes a specific usage note for the include parameter to inline content. This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_area or get_building_block.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives; the purpose is implied by the name 'get_service' and the description, but the description does not mention scenarios where other getter tools would be more appropriate.

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