podyx_get_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some genuine context (prices are independently paginated, amounts are configured catalog rates not dated quotes, a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price), but it is dominated by mutation boilerplate about idempotency keys, '[] clears the submitted collection', archive and restore that this read-only endpoint cannot perform, which muddies rather than clarifies behavior. It never describes what the returned service object contains.

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 a run-on sequence of dense clauses covering pagination, price semantics, collection-preservation semantics, archive lifecycle, idempotency and authority, with no structure or front-loading of the actual operation. A large share of the sentences describe write/archive behaviors irrelevant to this read call and should have been cut.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never says what a service resource returns or what nested objects (links, override sections, prices) look like, so an agent cannot anticipate the response. Combined with the schema mismatch on 'view' and the missing differentiation from the list tools, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain prices_page/prices_per_page as pagination over the service's configured prices tied to current service versions. However it says nothing about the required path.id beyond the URL template, and it advertises a 'view=offers' parameter that does not exist in the schema, which is actively misleading.

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 anchors to 'GET /api/v2/services/{id}', which does identify a fetch operation on a single service, but it opens with 'Get catalog services' (plural) and never distinguishes this endpoint from the sibling podyx_list_service / podyx_v1_list_services. An agent can guess it is a single-resource read, but the naming and the lack of sibling differentiation leave the purpose only partially pinned down.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use versus the list siblings, and no statement of when a caller should prefer this over podyx_v1_list_services or the quote tools. The hints that exist ('Authoring includes drafts', 'view=offers reuses customer buyability') point at a 'view' parameter that is absent from the schema (additionalProperties: false), so the only usage guidance provided is not actionable.

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