Get Service Summary

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds context by detailing the types of statistics included (most-called services, error rates, resource usage) and the external API call summary, going beyond annotation-only information.

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, about 25 words, efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key included data with no redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every word 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?

Given a rich schema and strong annotations, the description provides a high-level understanding of the returned data and core features. It does not describe output structure or time-range behavior, but the schema covers time defaults and max_count, so the description is adequately complete for a read-only summary tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters but are terse (e.g., 'Sort criteria' for sort_by). The description adds semantic meaning by explaining the metrics (count, error rate, elapsed) and the include_api_calls flag, which enhances understanding of parameter intent.

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 clearly states it retrieves aggregated service-level performance statistics, lists the specific dimensions (call count, error rates, resource consumption), and mentions external API call summary. This differentiates it from error-specific or transaction-specific tools.

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 implies usage for service-level performance analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. While it conveys the purpose, it lacks clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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