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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what the response actually contains (system prompt, role-family fields like instanceCount and siblings), which is meaningful because no output schema exists — though it does not flag that the system prompt may be sensitive data.

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 core action and return contents, then a short explanation of why the role-family fields matter. Two sentences, no filler, though the closing SaaS-style example is slightly discursive for a retrieval tool.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a reasonable level: named fields (agentType, customer, instanceCount, siblings) plus the generic categories of configuration and metadata. It is nearly complete, needing only the sensitive-data caveat or a note about the customerId superadmin path.

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% and both parameters (agentId, customerId with its superadmin-only note) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail — the word 'customer' appears only as a response field, not as guidance on the customerId parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (agent) and enumerates what comes back: system prompt, configuration, metadata, plus role-family fields. This distinguishes it from list_agents (plural listing) and get_agent_status (status only), though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer 'fetch full details' means use this rather than list_agents, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion against get_agent_status or analyze_agent, and no mention of prerequisites such as permissions needed to read a system prompt.

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