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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the meaning of the returned state, why a non-active service carries a reason, and that no credentials appear in the result.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return shape before the polling guidance. The em-dash interruption is slightly awkward but no sentence is wasted.

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 correctly compensates by describing the return (state + non-active reason) and the lifecycle semantics. Only the parameter's origin/format remains undocumented.

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 single parameter service_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. 'One data service by id' conveys that the parameter is the service identifier, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., where to get the id from).

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 ('One data service by id') and immediately scopes what is returned (its state, plus the failure reason when not active). This clearly separates it from list_services and the other get_* siblings.

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?

Names the trigger explicitly ('Poll this after create_service'), explains the expected lifecycle ('provisioning until its certificate is issued and verified'), and says what to do when it stalls. It also preempts a likely follow-up question by stating no credentials are returned by any tool.

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