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

With `readOnlyHint: true` already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the record's contents and stating that the result is meant for reaching the service. It does not cover response shape or authentication, but it is consistent with the annotation and provides value beyond it.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and return contents. However, the trailing 'norm.' is confusing noise and the phrasing 'use to reach the service' is grammatically awkward, so the structure is acceptable but not polished.

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 read-only get-by-id tool, the description plus annotation covers the main information: what is returned and that the operation is safe. The lack of an output schema, the unexplained `lang` parameter, and the odd 'norm.' fragment leave some ambiguity, so it is not fully 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?

The schema usefully documents `data_service_id` as the id from `i14y.list_data_services`, but schema description coverage is only 50% and the optional `lang` parameter has no description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, leaving `lang`'s meaning and format ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a singular resource ('one registered interface's record'), and it enumerates what the record contains: endpoints, OpenAPI links, licence, and served datasets. This makes clear it is a single-record lookup rather than a list operation, though it never explicitly names sibling tools and uses 'interface' instead of the tool's 'data_service' term.

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 phrase 'use to reach the service' gives a general use case, and the schema's description of `data_service_id` as coming from `i14y.list_data_services` implies a lookup sequence. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives, so the usage guidance remains more implied than explicit.

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