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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include both detection and running state across multiple service managers, which is useful context, but it says nothing about behavior when the agent is unknown, staleness of detection, or result volume.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the service-manager enumeration placed inline rather than padding out extra sentences. Zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be re-explained, and the read-only annotations cover safety. For a simple one-param read tool this is nearly complete; only failure modes and staleness of detection are left unaddressed.

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 100% for the single agent_id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'on one server' reinforces the single-server scope but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 (returns) and resource (services detected on one server), and enumerates the concrete sources covered: systemd units, Docker containers, PM2 processes. It also names the payload (running status). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_kubernetes_snapshot, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite related siblings such as get_server_overview and get_kubernetes_snapshot. The only usage signal is the implied 'one server' scoping, which comes from the schema rather than the description.

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