get_data_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the response includes 'full record... including endpoints' and that the language parameter affects 'titles and descriptions', which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with the annotations.

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, with one action-focused sentence and a compact Args block. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan, making it ideal for agent consumption.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and an output schema, this description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and the prerequisite for the ID. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit alternative/contrast with siblings, but the output schema handles return format details, so the description is sufficient.

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 has no per-property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The Args section does this well: it explains that data_service_id is a UUID from list_data_services and that language controls titles and descriptions, adding practical meaning beyond the raw schema (pattern and enum). Slight imprecision: the schema pattern allows more than UUIDs, but the hint is still helpful.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: 'full record for one registered API, including endpoints'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_data_services (which lists services) and get_dataset (which targets datasets), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite by stating that data_service_id is a 'UUID from list_data_services', indicating the tool should be used after listing services. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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