get_service_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it reveals that only active services are included and that filtering is optional, but it does not describe the shape of the returned details, auth behavior, or potential side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, which mitigates the gap.

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 sentences, no filler; the core scope is front-loaded and the optional filter is a natural second sentence. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with a fully described schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema it does not clarify what 'details' will be returned (e.g., plan, status, pricing). It also does not distinguish itself from get_account_overview, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the optionality of service_type and adds no new semantics beyond 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 names a specific action ('Get details') and resource ('active Spectrum services'), and enumerates service types to clarify scope. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like pay_bill and check_outages.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: when details about active Spectrum services are needed, with optional service_type filtering. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or route to get_account_overview, so it misses the top tier.

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