get_service

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

The description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description should carry the full burden, but it adds little beyond the verb.

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 concise and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words.

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 get operation with an output schema described, the description covers the return structure and error status. However, it lacks details on when errors occur or how to interpret the 'message' field. The absence of usage context and parameter details reduces completeness.

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 merely restates the parameter names and types ('adom: ADOM name', 'name: Service object name') without adding any additional context such as allowed values, formats, or examples. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so meaningfully.

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 retrieves detailed information about a service object, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource 'service object'. While not explicitly differentiating from siblings like 'get_address', the resource name is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_services' or 'get_service_group'. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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