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

The read-onlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are 'region-correct for the org' and enumerates the returned categories. There is no contradiction between description and annotations, but no deeper behavioral context such as output format or potential errors is disclosed.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the purpose ('How to wire this agent into an app') and then lists the key outputs. Every part adds value, with no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the main categories of returned wiring information and noting the read-only nature. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect, though exact response formatting and potential edge cases are not described.

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 fully documents the single required parameter, agent_id, with a clear description. The tool description does not add meaningfully beyond that, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden; a 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning deployment wiring details for an agent, listing concrete items such as REST endpoint, WebSocket URL, webhook triggers, embed snippet, and MCP connection. It is more specific than just restating the tool name, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_agent or probe_deployment.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need connection/wiring information for an agent. It does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer instead, so the usage context is clear but not fully directive.

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