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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read operation ('Gets') and adds a non-obvious suggestion to consider asking about contact. Yet it lacks explicit safety guarantees or allowed side effects, so the burden is only partially met.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a relevant follow-up instruction. No redundant 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 one-parameter getter, the description covers what the tool does and provides usage context via the 'after answering a prospective client' note. It does not enumerate return fields, but the tool's name and schema make the purpose clear, and the behavioral hint adds practical completeness.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage of the serviceId parameter with examples. The description repeats these examples without adding new meaning, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 it gets detailed information about a specific Walnai service by id, with concrete examples of valid ids. This verb+resource+method structure distinguishes it from list_services and other sibling tools.

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 usage when a specific service's details are needed, and gives a conversational context ('After answering a prospective client'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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