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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read-only fetch. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the return fields (system prompt, model, counts), which helps the agent anticipate the response shape. No contradictory behavior is disclosed, and the extra detail exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 sentence that leads with the action and resource, then efficiently lists the return fields. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or tangential information.

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 tool's simplicity—one parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema—the description is complete. It effectively acts as return-value documentation by listing all included details, and the parameter is fully documented. Nothing material is missing.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage by describing agent_id as 'The agent ID or name'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('agent') and lists the exact details returned (system prompt, model, skills count, tools count, grading suites count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_agents (which likely returns summaries) and update_agent (which modifies).

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 phrase 'full details' implies this tool should be used when a complete agent snapshot is needed, suggesting the need to distinguish from list_agents. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or stated when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied, not directly stated.

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