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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavior: it discloses the return shape (short page excerpt), the failure mode (plainly says no such service), and the fallback behavior (suggests nearest names) plus how to interpret that negative. Missing only peripheral details like performance or auth expectations.

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 front-loaded sentences with the core action first and the failure semantics second; no filler. Slightly dense in the second sentence but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns, and it does (page excerpt, negative result, nearest-name suggestions). For a one-parameter read lookup this is close to complete; only the exact response structure is left unspecified, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single parameter already documents that the name must match list_services output and is case-insensitive. The description repeats the sourcing constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('look up one service by name') and scopes it as a single-item lookup, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_services. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Ties usage to list_services as the source of the name and tells the agent how to treat a not-found result ('treat that as authoritative: the business does not offer it'). It does not explicitly say 'use list_services when you need the full catalog', so the routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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