get_software_model

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context by previewing the domain content of the response (rights, consumption rules, EOL date, lifecycle stage), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not say what happens when sys_id is unknown or the record is absent, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core payload fields in a compact parenthetical — no filler, no restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a documented parameter, this is nearly sufficient; naming the returned field groups compensates for the missing output schema. Only error/not-found behavior and the relationship to the sibling list tool are left implicit.

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% and the single sys_id param is documented as the cmdb_software_product_model key. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get full details') plus a clear resource ('a software model'), with the notable contents enumerated (rights, consumption rules, EOL date, lifecycle stage). It is not explicitly differentiated from the nearby list_software_models / list_software_discovery_models siblings, but 'full details' vs a list is readily inferable.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-naming guidance. The single-record detail form implies it follows a list call and requires a known sys_id, but the agent must infer that rather than being told.

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