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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds real behavioral context: starting from an error state triggers re-setup first, and running services are untouched (idempotent). That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotation set, though it doesn't say what permissions are required or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately qualified by the error-state caveat. Slightly awkward phrasing in the parenthetical but no wasted content.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety, the description covers the key edge cases (error state, already running). No output schema exists, but return shape is not described — a minor gap for a status-changing operation.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter already documented as coming from list_services. The description adds nothing about the id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Start a ... service") and clarifies the scope is a stopped service. It does not name the sibling that would be chosen instead (restart_service), so differentiation from siblings is left implicit.

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?

Gives the use condition (a stopped service) and the no-op case (already running is left as is), which is useful. But it never mentions restart_service or stop_service as alternatives, so an agent must infer when to prefer one over the other.

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