get_messaging_service

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only implies a read operation. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects, or return value structure.

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 extremely concise with one sentence. It is front-loaded and not verbose, though it could benefit from more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits return value information, error handling, and usage context needed for a complete understanding.

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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining the purpose or constraints of 'service_id' and 'fields'.

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 messaging service by ID', indicating the verb (Get) and the resource (messaging service). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from potential sibling tools like 'get_messaging_service_by_name' (which doesn't exist), but given the standard pattern, clarity is good.

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 like list_messaging_services. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for effective use.

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