Show service details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds useful context about what information is returned (status, config, resource limits), which annotations don't cover. It does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, or whether fields are truncated.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the usage trigger and ending with the returned content. No wasted words, though the em-dash clause could be split for scannability.

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 annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. However, it leaves both required parameters undocumented and says nothing about identifier formats, which matters at 0% schema coverage.

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 0% for both required parameters (project, service), so the description must compensate – but it never explains what 'project' or 'service' identifiers are or their formats. 'Single Lizard service' hints at the service param only.

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 clear verb ('wants details about') and resource ('a single Lizard service (app or addon)'), and lists the concrete data surfaced (status, config, resource limits). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from service_list, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants details about a single service') and implicitly contrasts with list operations, but names no alternative tool and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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