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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a retrieval-style operation by describing the returned details, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. The description focuses on return content rather than behavioral traits, though the word 'get' and the informational nature make side effects unlikely.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the slug values. It contains no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary background. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what the tool returns and the valid values for the slug. It does not describe the response structure or explicitly differentiate from list_services, but the detail level is sufficient for a simple retrieval call.

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%, so the description compensates by defining the slug's role ('service category') and listing all valid values. This adds semantic meaning that the bare enum schema does not provide. Minor gaps remain because it does not explain what each category entails or any additional formatting constraints.

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 resource (service category) and the type of content returned (items, prices, precautions, FAQ), and it enumerates all valid slug values. The title '單一服務細節' reinforces the single-service focus. It does not explicitly contrast with list_services, but the singular scope is evident.

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 that a slug must be supplied and lists the valid choices, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as list_services or how_to_book. There is no 'use this when' or routing information, only the bare instruction that a slug selects a service category.

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