read_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the content is *cached* (implying possible staleness and read-only access), but says nothing about permissions, cache invalidation, or freshness guarantees.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and followed by usage context. No filler, though the bare 'Context:' label is slightly mechanical.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is returned and roughly when to use it. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameter semantics, which is minor given the illustrative examples.

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 0% for the single required service_name parameter. The description partially compensates by naming four valid service identifiers, which conveys the expected naming convention, but it does not document format rules, case sensitivity, or what happens with an unknown service.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and enumerates the resource contents (cached functions, notes, source links, examples) scoped to 'one service'. This is clearly distinct from the sibling read_object/read_type/read_event tools in substance, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 'Context' sentence gives concrete example services (InventoryService, TeamService, ChatService, UIService) that imply when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many read_* siblings.

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