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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: it does not connect, never includes credentials, never authorizes a task or payment, and the plan may surface a domain ambiguity. This is meaningful disclosure for a metadata-only tool.

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 purpose, then inputs, then outputs, then caveats and safety notes. Every sentence carries information; only the authorization sentence is slightly tangential to the tool itself, but it is a useful flow guardrail.

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 one param, no output schema, and safety annotations already in place, the description covers inputs, expected returns (interfaces, auth metadata, modes, skills, evidence), caveats, and safety limits. An agent has enough to call it correctly; pagination/formatting of the returned evidence is the only unwritten detail.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'target' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does: it enumerates four accepted forms (LocalMark agent ID, Agent Card URL, endpoint URL, domain) and flags the domain-ambiguity caveat. It could go further on format/syntax expectations, but this is strong compensation for an undocumented param.

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 and resource ('Read connection metadata for a public agent') plus the key constraint ('without connecting to it'), which separates it from the connect/execute tools. However, it never names or contrasts against the sibling tools (get_agent, verify_agent), so an agent must infer the boundary from the 'metadata-only' framing.

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?

Provides a clear usage constraint ('Obtain explicit task authorization before using any endpoint'), which is implied guidance for the downstream flow, and warns that 'a publisher domain may be ambiguous.' It does not state when to prefer this over get_agent or verify_agent, leaving selection to inference.

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