get_service_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It adds the 'readonly-owner' tier and the 1000-ID limit, which are useful behavioral constraints. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authorization specifics, or what 'full' records include, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides bonus context (API mapping and tier) in a compact form. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary fluff.

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 batch-get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the limit, API route, and safety tier. However, it stops short of explaining response shape or error semantics, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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%, and the description compensates by explicitly noting the 1000-ID limit, which is not in the schema. The parameter name 'typeIDs' and the phrase 'service type records' clarify that the array contains service type identifiers, adding meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('full service type records'), and a scope/limit ('up to 1000 IDs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_service_types by emphasizing retrieval by IDs for full records.

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 implies usage when you have known IDs and want full records, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_service_types or other get_* tools. The API mapping and tier hint at context but do not provide direct alternatives or exclusions.

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