Get service

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

Annotations only declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true); the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: polling cadence and retry ceiling, interpretation of waitingReason and attention flags, the legacy stateProccess alias, the fact that unknown guest-agent status does not prove the VM is down, that available=false resource rows are placeholders, and the services:read auth requirement. These are exactly the traits annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, but the body is a chain of comma-spliced run-ons that mix field-path notation (stateProcess.waitingReason) into prose, and 'stateProccess' is misspelled. Most sentences carry real information, yet the lack of paragraphing or bullets makes the operational rules harder to extract than they need to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still supplies the state-machine semantics, polling discipline, and auth requirement an agent needs to call and re-call it correctly. It is nearly complete; what is missing is any cue about how this differs from adjacent reads like get_service_graphs or get_service_history.

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 100% and the single orderNo parameter is fully specified there with pattern, length, and examples. The description refers to 'the original service order' and 'retain the order' but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb and resource: get detailed info plus follow-up readiness for the original service order. It implicitly separates this from get_service_graphs, get_service_history, and list_services by scoping to a single order's process state, though it never names a sibling explicitly. The purpose is clear but is partly buried under a dense run of operational caveats.

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?

It states exactly when to keep polling this same order, that ~10 seconds is an interval rather than an ETA, and to check at most 6 times before a progress update. It also gives explicit prohibitions: never reorder, pay again, or manually restart when waitingReason=public_ip_inventory, and that stateProcess.attention=true needs operator attention. That is when/how/when-not guidance, not inference.

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