get_service_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention any authentication requirements for invoking the tool itself or potential errors. It only lists the content of the response.

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 a single sentence that conveys the purpose and key details in a compact manner, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the zero-parameter scope and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (base URL, auth requirements, campaign hierarchy). It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is already complete. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as there is no semantic gap to fill.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'OSMOS Marketing API service definition' with details (base URL, authentication, campaign hierarchy). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_endpoint_definition by focusing on the overall service rather than a specific endpoint.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_endpoint_definition or list_endpoints. It provides no exclusions or context about choosing this over the other service metadata tools.

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