deployado_get_service

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere; the description adds none of the extra context that would earn credit, such as the kind of service records returned or their resolution format. Because there is no output schema, the description's failure to describe what 'detailed information' actually contains leaves a real gap, and it contributes nothing beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. The sentence is short but does not waste any words, though it borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

As a simple read-only, single-parameter, idempotent lookup, the annotations and the schema cover most of what an agent needs. Without an output schema, it is more important to know what 'detailed information' returns, and the description does not supply that, so it is only minimally 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 coverage is 100% for the single service_id parameter, and the schema documents it as a UUID. The description adds no additional meaning, such as where to obtain the ID, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and a specific resource ('a specific installed service'), which is enough to separate it from list_services or install_service. However, it never names a sibling, so the differentiation is inferred from the words 'specific' and 'installed' rather than stated.

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 never states when to use this tool instead of deployado_list_services or the start, stop, and restart siblings, and it gives no prerequisites, such as that you first need a service_id from the list endpoint. The only hint of context is the word 'specific', which the agent has to interpret on its own.

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