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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint (GET /businesses/{businessId}/services/{serviceId}), which is genuinely useful context for constructing calls, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing id or what the business_id default means.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the primary purpose front-loaded ahead of the endpoint detail. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, this is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the absence of anything about response shape or failure modes, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the default for business_id and where service_id comes from. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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 ('Get one service by id'), which clearly separates it from the sibling list_services. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, but the singular-vs-list distinction 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the single-item lookup counterpart to reservio_list_services. The hint that service_id comes from reservio_list_services lives in the schema, not the description, and there is no statement about when to prefer list_services versus this tool.

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