smm_service_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the call is free and read-only by implication, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or whether 'gateway support' implies further downstream actions.

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?

Very short, which is appropriate for a one-param read tool, but the redundant, duplicated '(free) (free)' tag is sloppy and wastes the little space available.

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 one-param read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate: it conveys the two pieces of returned information (provider description, gateway support). It still leaves the id's origin and usage routing unstated.

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 0% and the single serviceId parameter is only hinted at by 'a known catalogue service'. The description does not explain the numeric id format or where such an id comes from (e.g., smm_services), leaving the schema pattern as the only guidance.

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 (Read) and resource (provider description and gateway support) for a catalogue service identified by id. It is distinguishable from smm_services (which lists services) since this returns details for one known service, though the description never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

'for a known catalogue service' implies you must already have a serviceId, and '(free)' signals no cost. However, it never says when to use this versus smm_services or smm_quote, so routing guidance is only implied.

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