get_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether the call is read-only (only implied by 'get'), not what happens when the name is unknown, and not whether it errors or returns empty. Only the thinnest behavioral implication is present.

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 single sentence has zero filler and is front-loaded, but it is underspecified rather than genuinely concise for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. Brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description should say what a 'service' record contains and how missing names are handled. Neither is covered, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape or failure mode.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains that name accepts a service name or job id and that both resolve to the same row. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Get one service" states a specific verb and resource, so the basic meaning is inferable. But it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like list_services, service_stats, or diagnose_service, and 'service' is ambiguous until the schema clarifies app/model/database.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_services or service_stats, and no mention of prerequisites or the name-vs-job-id resolution behavior that the schema documents. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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