get_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that with 'Cached up to 5 min', telling the agent results may be stale. It doesn't discuss auth requirements or error cases, but for a read-only lookup the cache disclosure is the key trait.

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 with zero waste: core behavior first, then caching caveat, then sibling routing. Everything is front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only getter with no output schema and full schema documentation, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: sibling routing, the meaning of the full flag, and cache staleness. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters documented including the full/methods/with_drafts defaults, so the schema carries the semantics. The description restates only the full flag and adds no format details for the service identifier or methods/with_drafts beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('read one service's settings by ID') plus the scope modifier (full=true adds defaults), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It is immediately distinguishable from list_services and global_config_read, which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use list_services to find IDs and global_config_read for global settings. It also states the condition under which the full flag matters, leaving no alternatives to inference.

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