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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' and 'definition' imply a read-only, non-executing operation, and the output schema covers return structure, but the description does not explicitly state that the service is not invoked or mention any authentication/error behavior.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The key facts—what is retrieved, for which service, and by what identifier—are front-loaded and directly useful for tool selection.

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 simple single-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, target resource, and parameter role; minor omissions are an explicit no-side-effect guarantee and guidance on discovering valid slugs, though sibling tools like list_services may cover that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that the single parameter is the catalogue slug identifying the service. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Slug' string, though it does not specify slug format or how to obtain a valid slug.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('the machine-readable definition of one live Agent Shop service'), and the selection mechanism ('by catalogue slug'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_services (one vs. many) and invoke_service (definition vs. execution).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a caller needs the machine-readable definition of a single live service, identified by its catalogue slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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