Get service rescue status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the required permission scope ('services:read') and an explicit disclosure of what is never returned (provider identifiers, ISO paths, nonces, rollback state), which meaningfully sets expectations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the permission requirement and the negative-return caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the data categories that are deliberately withheld, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. It is nearly complete, though it does not characterize the shape of the returned rescue-session data an agent should expect.

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% and the single orderNo parameter is fully documented with pattern, length, and an example, so the schema carries the weight. The description only reinforces that the identifier must be an owned service ('one owned ... VPS'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: reading 'operator rescue capability and the current durable rescue session' for one owned Firecracker/Cloud VPS. It clearly distinguishes a read of rescue state from the mutating siblings enter_service_rescue/exit_service_rescue by semantics, though it never names them 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?

It states the prerequisite 'Requires services:read' and scopes the target ('one owned Firecracker VPS or Cloud VPS'), which implies it is the check-before-mutate call. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus enter_service_rescue/exit_service_rescue or other get_service* siblings, leaving the routing to inference.

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