get_handover_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content by naming the returned fields (version, service URL, properties), though it says nothing about failure behavior when the service is not found.

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 front-loaded sentence covering what it does, what it accepts, and what it returns. "properties" is vague filler, but the rest earns its place 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?

With one fully documented parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials by summarizing the return shape. Only the not-found/error behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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% with a single required parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by disclosing that the field accepts a service name as well as an ID. This is slightly at odds with the schema text ("The handover service ID to retrieve"), but it adds usable semantics rather than contradicting the annotations.

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 ("Gets detailed information") and a specific resource ("a specific Cognigy.AI handover service"), which cleanly separates it from list_handover_services and from get_handover_provider. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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 by the word "specific" – the agent can infer this is the single-item lookup versus the list sibling, but no when/when-not conditions or alternatives are stated explicitly. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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