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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the pagination granularity of both collections (25 per page, tokens newest first) and the shape of what is returned, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information: what is read first, then the downstream id usage. No filler.

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 return-shape burden and does a reasonable job naming the returned entities and their fields. It does not specify total counts, default ordering of instances, or error behavior for a missing slug, which is a minor residual 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 100%, so every filter (instance_q, instance_status, the two offsets, provisioner_status) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or default detail for those filters, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Read one agent') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: kind, status, a page of instances with named fields, and a page of provisioner tokens. An agent can distinguish this from list_agents purely from the description.

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?

Clearly positions the tool as the single-agent reader and explains that the returned instance and token ids are the inputs that update_agent_instance, revoke_agent_credential and revoke_provisioner_token take, which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming list_agents as the multi-agent alternative explicitly.

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