Get services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the endpoint and notes that body fields are none, which is useful. The schema adds behavioral context about pagination ('Pagination is explicit using offset and limit; results are not automatically combined'), which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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: three sentences covering the action, endpoint, body fields, and a reference link. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The reference link is useful but could be considered extra; overall it earns its place for an API-backed tool.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential context: endpoint, no body, query parameters, and pagination behavior. The lack of an output schema means return format is not described, but for a list endpoint this is a minor gap. The reference link provides a fallback for deeper details.

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 the query parameter object and its documented names. The description adds the endpoint and confirms no body fields, which helps clarify that the only input is query parameters. The schema's note about arrays being comma-joined and pagination behavior adds meaning beyond basic parameter names, so the description plus schema provide strong parameter semantics.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Get services') and includes the exact API endpoint (GET /api/xm/1/services). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like xmatters_get_a_service (singular) and xmatters_get_service_dependencies, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The title and description align well.

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 the endpoint and a reference link, which implies usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like xmatters_get_a_service or xmatters_get_service_dependencies. The schema's query parameter documentation gives some guidance on filtering, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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