get_connectivity_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation but does not state what details are returned, whether the resource can be absent, what errors occur, or whether any scoping or permission requirements apply. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious meaning of the name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, but it is also quite terse and leaves important usage and behavior details unstated. Conciseness is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a generic description mean the agent has little context beyond parameter names. Given the large sibling set and the ambiguity of 'connectivity service,' the description should provide more detail about the resource, return shape, or relationship to list_connectivity_services. The definition is minimally viable but not complete.

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 schema already documents account_id and service_id as strings. The description adds no new meaning about how these identifiers relate to a connectivity service or how they should be formatted. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a connectivity service.' This clearly indicates a read operation for a single connectivity-service resource, which is distinct from the sibling list_connectivity_services. However, it does not explain what a 'connectivity service' is, so the meaning is somewhat reliant on domain knowledge.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus list_connectivity_services or other get_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical query patterns, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list, which is inadequate.

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