get_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose unusual behavior for specific inputs ('evil' returns a prompt-injection payload, 'big' returns ~100k chars), which is real behavioral context. However it omits error behavior, permissions, and whether the call has side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The special-value note is compact, though it reads as fixture metadata rather than guidance an agent would act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a one-parameter read tool is inherently simple. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the 'name' parameter's semantics and error behavior unaddressed.

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 0% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for the special values 'evil' and 'big' and never explains the normal format of 'name' (service ID vs. display name), leaving the primary use case undocumented.

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?

"Get one service (read)" states a specific verb, resource, and cardinality, which implicitly separates it from list_services. It does not name the sibling explicitly, and the parenthetical "(read)" is minimal reinforcement rather than real differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single service by name versus listing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_services, and no prerequisites or failure conditions (e.g., service not found) are mentioned.

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