explain_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly lists the return contents and explicitly notes that a NOT_FOUND error is returned for nonexistent service names. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, making this acceptable.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by key details and error behavior. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively lists all returned data elements and the error condition. It explains the human-readable dependency graph aspect, covering the tool's scope adequately without needing to over-explain.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single 'name' parameter, including examples. The description adds the error condition tied to the parameter ('if the service name does not exist') but does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a detailed explanation of a FinPay microservice' and enumerates the specific details returned (purpose, owning team, language, dependencies, health, port). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services or get_system_health, which serve different purposes.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving detailed information about a specific service, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools like list_services or get_system_health, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as confirming the service exists first.

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