get_service_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the categories of information returned (scope, call specs, format, restrictions), providing basic behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It front-loads the key action and lists covered aspects without extraneous words. Slightly more detail (e.g., parameter hints) could improve structure without harming conciseness.

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?

Given two parameters with 0% schema coverage and no explanation in the description, the tool definition is incomplete for correct invocation. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but input parameter semantics are entirely missing, making the description insufficient for a new user.

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%, and the description fails to explain the two parameters (service_id and server). Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot reliably construct the input. The description must compensate for missing schema descriptions but does not.

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 tool retrieves detailed usage instructions for a specified service, listing covered aspects (capability, call spec, return format, restrictions). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_services or get_task.

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 use when needing service usage details, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Among siblings, list_services lists available services, while this tool provides usage details, so some differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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