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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool returns details such as protocol support, URLs, auth method, billing, and metadata, which conveys a read-only lookup. However, it does not address error behavior, not-found cases, rate limits, or any authentication requirements for calling the tool.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the useful output categories. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description provides a solid summary of what will be returned and when to use the tool. It could be slightly more complete by noting the exact response shape or what happens when a slug does not exist, but the essential information for selecting and invoking the tool is present.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single slug parameter is already well-documented with examples in the schema. The description only adds that lookup is by slug, which adds marginal value beyond the structured input schema.

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 clearly states the tool gets full details for a specific service by slug, listing the included information types. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_services (searching) and list_categories (listing), making the tool's purpose 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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool when you already have a specific service slug and need complete details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'by its slug' phrasing implies it is not for discovery or searching.

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