service_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the execution model (runs via the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension in the user's logged-in browser), the required error-handling behavior, and the ambiguity policy (a name matching several entities returns candidates instead of guessing). It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only/side-effect free, which is the only meaningful 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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence summary before any enumeration, and each subsequent paragraph has a distinct job (what you get, how to call it, where to go next, execution caveat). The payload enumeration in sentence one is long, but it is load-bearing information for judging whether this tool fits a need.

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?

With no output schema, the description must say what comes back, and it does — latency percentiles, failure rate, throughput, trend, upstream/downstream relationships, infrastructure, and affected problems. Combined with the drill-down map and the browser-extension caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The prose reinforces the `service` id-vs-name ambiguity rule and the window resolution behavior, but these are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it (e.g. no extra guidance on relationship_limit tradeoffs).

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 opening sentence states a concrete verb+resource with scope ('Everything about one service in one call') and then enumerates the exact payload categories: type/technology/tags, latency percentiles, failure rate, throughput, relationships, process groups/hosts/k8s, and problems. An agent can distinguish this from get_entity, list_services, or analyze_failures without opening any 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?

It explicitly routes discovery through `list_services`, then names the drill-down alternatives (`list_service_requests`, `list_traces`, `analyze_failures`, `analyze_response_time`, `service_flow`, `service_backtrace`, `get_problem`) and the condition for using each. It also states a failure-mode policy (report the error, do not fall back to browser automation), which is uncommon and valuable.

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