Get Service Usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does disclose the nature of the payload (capability scope, invocation rules, return format, limits), which is meaningful content beyond the schema. However it says nothing about whether the lookup is read-only, what happens for an unknown service_id, or whether usage docs are static or server-specific.

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 with a parenthetical inventory of what the docs contain — no waste. It is, if anything, slightly terse for a two-parameter tool with an output schema.

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?

The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, and the description covers the documentation's content well. But for a tool with zero schema coverage on two parameters and no annotations, it leaves the `server` parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. '指定服务' gestures at service_id, but the `server` parameter (defaulted, empty string) is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a required and an optional parameter underdocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('获取指定服务的详细用法说明') and enumerates what the returned documentation covers (capability scope, invocation conventions, return format, limitations). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_services, which only enumerate services. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 implied — an agent should call this when it needs to know how to invoke a particular service — but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no reference to sibling tools such as discover or list_services. The agent must infer the workflow position.

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