get_service_info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what fields are returned (host, port, stack, domain, role, co-located services), which goes beyond the annotations and schema structure itself.

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 compact sentences front-load the action and then enumerate outputs concisely. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, redundancy, or repetition of schema details.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with a fully documented required parameter, an existing output schema, and safety annotations. The description adequately covers purpose and provides a useful output preview; given the rich structured context, nothing more is needed.

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?

The schema already covers the single required parameter fully (100% coverage) with an explicit description and examples of valid service names. The description's phrase 'by name' reinforces that name is the exact lookup key, adding marginal meaning but not materially extending the 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear resource ('a service by name') and enumerates the return fields (host, port, stack, domain, role, co-located services), which distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like get_host_info and get_ip_info. The scope is precise and immediately idsss the tool's identity.

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 usage scenario is implied ('look up a service by name') but the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings such as get_host_info, get_ip_info, or explain_service_health. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving the differentiation to the reader.

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