get_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses that subcomponent counts are returned, that budget data is opt-in, and that subcomponent arrays are not returned here but through dedicated tools. It does not explicitly discuss permissions or error behavior, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Get'.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core purpose and scoping constraints are front-loaded before the alternative-tool guidance.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it says what details and counts are returned, how to include budget, and where subcomponent data lives. It does not enumerate return fields, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already defines serviceId and the include enum. The description reinforces the include behavior for budget but adds little beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get service details by ID. It also specifies return scope (subcomponent counts) and distinguishes this tool from the dedicated activity, purchase, and revenue tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (fetching one service by ID) and when to use alternatives for activities, purchases, and revenues. The optional budget inclusion condition is also stated explicitly.

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