catalog_describe_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'describe[s]' a service, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., structured data or text). The description lacks behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details (e.g., output type). There's no wasted text, making it concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects and parameter usage. It's adequate for a basic read operation but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('service') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'service' refers to a 'servico investigativo especifico' (specific investigative service), but doesn't clarify format (e.g., string ID, name), source (e.g., from 'catalog_list_services'), or examples. With low schema coverage, the description compensates slightly but inadequately, warranting a baseline score.

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 states the tool 'Describe[s] um servico investigativo especifico do catalogo do Pharus' which translates to 'Describe a specific investigative service from the Pharus catalog.' This provides a clear verb ('describe') and resource ('service'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'describe' entails (e.g., returns metadata, details, or documentation) and doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'catalog_list_services' beyond the singular vs. plural focus. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to know a service name from 'catalog_list_services'), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context or alternatives provided.

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