Get service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response includes (type, status, expiry), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe error behaviors or side effects, but given the read-only nature, the description is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core action is stated first, followed by a practical pointer to the prerequisite list call. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description explains what fields are returned, which is helpful. It doesn't mention potential errors or edge cases, but for a read-only get-by-id operation, this level of detail is sufficient. The annotations cover the read-only and idempotent aspects.

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% for both parameters. The description adds value by telling the agent where to obtain the serviceId (from ws_service_list), which is not in the schema. The userId parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and meaning, so the description's hint about serviceId origin is a meaningful addition.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one service by id'), and further specifies the returned fields (type, status, expiry). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ws_service_list by explicitly noting the difference between listing and getting a single item.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use ws_service_list first to find the id.' This tells the agent the correct prerequisite and ordering. It doesn't explicitly contrast with other get tools (e.g., ws_user_get), but the resource name and clarity make the use case clear enough.

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