get_client_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns against fabricating data on failure, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like return format, read-only nature, or authentication requirements. Still, the warning adds significant value beyond what the schema provides.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second provides an exclusion, and the third delivers a critical warning. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and error handling. It omits the return format, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, the agent can infer it returns a list of the requested service type. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the enum values (invoices, collections, tickets, additionals) which matches the schema, but does not add any additional parameter semantics (e.g., format, constraints, or examples). The alternative usage guidance is about tool selection, not parameter details.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'services for a specific client', and enumerates the exact service types (invoices, collections, tickets, additionals). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_client' by explicitly stating its scope and when to use the alternative.

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 provides explicit guidance: it tells the agent when NOT to use this tool (for internet/TV/phone connections) and names the alternative tool and its parameters ('get_client with relaciones=coninter,contv,contel'). It also includes a behavioral warning about error handling, giving clear instructions to avoid fabrication.

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