get_handover_service

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds minimal value by stating what is returned, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two short sentences (12 words) that are front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 get-by-id tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It lacks mention of error conditions or edge cases, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (serviceId) with full schema description coverage (100%). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's own description, hence baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Gets') and the resource ('specific Cognigy.AI handover service'), and explicitly lists the return elements ('service type, configuration schema, and supported features'). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools by specifying the unique resource.

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 usage context as a retrieval tool but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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