Get a service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds 'Body fields: none', which is useful, but otherwise contributes little about response format, errors, or auth requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the endpoint, body-field note, and reference link. It has no fluff, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 simple single-resource GET, the description plus annotations and schema provide enough to construct a call: required serviceId path parameter, no body, and open-world query support. However, it lacks any explanation of the response payload or error conditions, and usage guidance is absent, leaving the definition merely adequate.

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 description adds minimal parameter meaning: the endpoint shows serviceId is a path parameter and 'Body fields: none' clarifies there is no request body. However, serviceId itself is not semantically described, and query parameter behavior is only covered in the schema description, not in the tool description, leaving a gap at 50% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('a service'), and the endpoint with {serviceId} reinforces that this targets a single service by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmatters_get_services without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_services, nor any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios. The endpoint implies a single-service lookup, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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