minia2a_get_service

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds useful context about what information is returned (price, endpoint URL, input schema, usage instructions), similar to adding a scoping constraint. It does not go into deeper behavioral traits like rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple read-only lookup this 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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is packed into a short second sentence. 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could mention that serviceId typically comes from minia2a_list_services, but that is a minor gap rather than a significant omission.

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 parameter serviceId is already documented as 'The service ID or name to get details for.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how to discover valid serviceIds or format expectations. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the verb ('Get detailed information') and the specific resource ('a specific x402 service on minia2a.uk'), and lists the payload (price, endpoint URL, input schema, usage instructions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like minia2a_list_services (specific vs. list) and minia2a_call_service (preparation vs. invocation).

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 explicitly says 'Use this before calling a service to understand what it needs,' which is a clear when-to-use directive. It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent to the right tool.

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