user_user_service_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about pagination defaults, permission requirements, the admin-on-behalf-of semantics, or return shape — only restates the HTTP method and a tag.

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 text is short but not concise: it contains an HTTP verb, a Russian label, a tag, and a spec name that convey no operational information to an agent. There is no front-loaded explanation of purpose.

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 four-parameter list endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and no behaviour description, the definition is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot tell scope, filtering semantics, or what a call returns.

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 the four parameters (limit, offset, user_id, user_service_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is largely a restatement of the generated name and route (GET /user/service) plus a Russian phrase translating to 'List of user services'. It never states what the tool actually returns or how it differs from the dozens of user_service_* siblings, so an agent cannot distinguish it from user_service_get or admin_user_service_get without more context.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. With siblings like user_service_get and admin_user_service_get in scope, the absence of routing guidance is actively unhelpful.

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