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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. What it adds is genuinely beyond annotations: the required services:read scope, the stability warning that the API may change without a version bump, and the notable exclusion of free-text descriptions from the payload.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the 'Preview API' caveat and the core resource, with no filler. The 'excluding free-text descriptions' clause earns its place by preventing wrong expectations about the payload.

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 read-only single-resource fetch with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned in broad terms but not the shape of the service object or its overrides, and gives no hint about error behavior for unknown IDs. Adequate but not complete.

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% for two required parameters, so the description carries some burden. It never explains locationId or serviceId semantics, though the schema's own patterns (^svc_ .*, ^loc_ .*) make the ID formats self-evident. Marginal added value.

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 states a specific resource ('One service and its per-resource overrides') and a meaningful scope qualifier ('excluding free-text descriptions'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling cliento_list_services. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, but the singular-vs-list distinction is obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required services:read scope and the 'Preview API' framing signal preconditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to alternatives like cliento_list_services or cliento_list_resource_services. An agent can infer 'fetch a single service by id' but must reason about it.

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