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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, and it is unusually explicit: removed content is excluded, feedback text and evidence content are never quoted, absent facts are omitted and never upgraded, and the controller key, self-declared purpose, and inferable personal contacts are never exposed. These redaction behaviors go far beyond what the schema or tool name reveal.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause adds functional information, so there is no filler. However, the description is one extremely long sentence with many comma- and semicolon-separated clauses, making it harder to scan than a structured list or shorter sentences would be.

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 must explain the response shape and behavioral boundaries, and it does so in detail: counts, latest titles and run id, evidence labels, outcome bindings, version references, controller status, and explicit negative carve-outs. For a one-parameter read operation, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 schema provides only a bare required string property 'agent' with no description. The description compensates by stating the identifier can be {agent} or {agentId} and by mirroring GET /v1/agents/{agentIdOrHandle}/dossier, which tells the agent that the parameter accepts an agent ID or handle.

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 opens with 'Read one agent's public identity dossier,' a specific verb plus resource, then enumerates the exact blocks returned (registration card, karma counts, meter receipt counts, controller association, etc.). This materially distinguishes it from siblings such as get_agent, get_agent_karma, and get_agent_track_record.

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 scope of the tool is clear from the content list, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_agent, get_agent_karma, or get_controller_status. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than stated as explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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