get_l402_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully lists the return contents (endpoint URL, pricing, protocol, payment address, verification status), which tells the agent what kind of information it will receive, but it does not mention behavior on missing slugs, authentication requirements, or response format.

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?

A single sentence, tightly structured and front-loaded with the action and resource before listing the key detail fields. Every part adds useful information and there is no 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 one-parameter fetch tool with low complexity, the description covers the core purpose and previews expected output fields. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by listing return contents, though error behavior and exact response structure are not described. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already fully documents the single parameter 'slug' with examples, and the description adds only 'by its slug identifier', which restates the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description provides little additional meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Get full details'), a specific resource ('L402/x402 service'), and the exact lookup mechanism ('by its slug identifier'). This clearly distinguishes it from search/list-style sibling tools and tells an agent exactly what to expect.

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 implies the tool is used when you already have a service slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like search_l402_services or get_service_descriptor. It provides clear context for the intended use case but no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing.

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