Service details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the payload contents ("includes the price packages and buyer reviews"), which is meaningful because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting failure modes for an invalid token or slug.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then a short routing paragraph - no filler sentences. The second paragraph leans toward cross-tool navigation rather than this tool's contract, but it is short and earns its space.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what comes back, how to obtain the identifier, and where to go for related data. No material gap remains for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains that `service` accepts a kl_services token, a slug, or a karlancer.com URL. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that; its only parameter-adjacent content is guidance about passing the seller id to a different tool.

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?

"Get one Karlancer service in full" names a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the fields returned (description, price, delivery time, requirements, FAQ, skills, seller stats). The singular "one service" plus the sibling tool kl_services makes the list-vs-detail split unambiguous without opening either schema.

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?

"Use after kl_services" states the explicit prerequisite and sequencing. It also routes adjacent needs elsewhere - kl_freelancer for the seller profile and kl_worksamples for the portfolio - so the agent knows which sibling covers what this tool does not.

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