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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses behavioral facts beyond the schema: only *published* agents are retrievable, and it names the returned artifacts (source, declared skills, latest card check). However, it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior when the ID is unknown, or permissions.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and returned content front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly picks up the slack by enumerating what is returned. For a simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations this is close to complete, though the lack of any error or auth context leaves a small gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds one meaningful fact — the identifier is a 'LocalMark ID' — but omits format, type expectation (the schema says integer), and how to obtain a valid ID. Partial compensation for a single undocumented parameter.

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 (one published agent), and enumerates what is returned: source, declared skills, and latest card check. The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from list_agents and search_agents, though it never names them 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: 'one published agent' suggests single-record lookup versus the sibling list/search tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of alternatives. An agent can infer the intent but receives no routing guidance.

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