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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description's 'reads status only' reinforces but does not extend that. With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema present, this is solid but adds limited new behavioral context beyond confirming the read-only nature.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary action comes first and the sibling comparison follows. Nothing 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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers parameters. What remains unstated is only minor, e.g. behavior when the named service does not exist.

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%, with all three parameters (name, scope, device) documented, including an enum and usage guidance for scope. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 (inspect), resource (one named OS service), and scope (on a paired computer). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from service_list, so the agent can choose between the two without opening either 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?

Gives clear selection criteria: use when the service name is known, preferable to service_list in that case. It does not explicitly exclude the mutation siblings (service_start/stop/restart), though 'reads status only' strongly implies it.

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