assets_get_external_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the API limit (20 IDs), the required license, and the POST method, which is helpful. However, it does not discuss response format, error behavior, or explicit read-only nature beyond the verb 'get'.

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 well-structured with a short summary, then the limit, license, endpoint, and example. Each part is purposeful, though the license line is somewhat verbose. Overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. It includes the request structure and constraints. However, it does not clarify the difference from the plural sibling 'assets_get_external_services' or describe the return payload, which would be valuable given no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the 20-ID limit and providing an example JSON body, which helps understand the nested request_data structure.

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 action ('Get service details') and the resource ('according to the service ID'), making it unambiguous. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'assets_get_external_services' by focusing on ID-based lookup and explicitly allowing up to 20 IDs.

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?

Provides clear context: the HTTP endpoint, required license, and an example request body. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is well-defined enough to guide invocation.

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