armut_service_detail

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the returned fields and the downstream dependency on service_id, and read-only behavior is implied by 'detail'. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, failure modes for invalid slugs, or whether a single record is always returned.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the single parameter's meaning and discovery path. No filler; the parenthetical about the price guide earns its place by linking to a sibling workflow.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: the description covers purpose, the parameter's format, and its role in the broader workflow, so the output schema handles return structure. Only edge-case behavior for invalid or missing slugs is left unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that service_slug is a slug string, provides a concrete format example ('ev-temizligi'), and tells the agent where to find valid values. It does not specify error behavior for unknown slugs, but the semantic gap is largely closed.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource: fetching the detail of one service, and enumerates exactly which fields come back (name, description, pro count, rating, review count, service_id). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from armut_search_services, which it names as the lookup path for slugs, though it never states the sibling boundary directly.

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?

It gives concrete workflow context by naming armut_search_services as the way to obtain a valid service_slug and flagging that service_id is needed for the price guide, so an agent knows how this tool fits between discovery and pricing. It stops short of stating when not to call it or listing alternative routes explicitly.

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