get_service_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what happens on errors (e.g., invalid service_type). The example implies a string parameter format but doesn't clarify behavioral traits like response format or side effects.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a purpose statement and an example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, and the example is relevant but not verbose. However, the example could be more integrated (e.g., explaining the parameter) rather than standalone.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., structure of details), error conditions, or usage context. For a tool that presumably returns complex data, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal value. It mentions 'service_type' in the example but doesn't explain what it represents (e.g., a package/service identifier), valid formats, or constraints. With 1 undocumented parameter, the description fails to provide meaningful semantics beyond the basic example.

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 tool's purpose with the verb 'Get' and resource 'complete service details', including specific components like 'request and response structures'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_services' (list) and 'get_service_type' (type only) by focusing on comprehensive details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'inspect_all_services', which might be similar in scope.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after listing services), or exclusions (e.g., not for basic info). The example shows usage but doesn't explain why to choose this over siblings like 'get_service_type' or 'inspect_all_services', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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