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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's real contribution is scope: it pins the decision history to a 24-hour window and the performance figure to a 7-day holding comparison. It does not address whether unpublished agents are excluded ('published' hints at this but is not stated) or anything about response size given the potentially large decision list.

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 sentence with the resource front-loaded and a dense colon-delimited payload list. Every clause conveys returnable content; there is 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 and no annotations covering payload shape, the description carries the return-value burden and mostly discharges it by enumerating each returned section and its time window. A minor gap remains around the 'published' qualifier and whether unpublished agents resolve, which matters for a single-record fetch.

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 100% and the single id parameter is documented in the schema, including its UUID format and the note that it comes from list_agents. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier, so the schema does all the work and baseline 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?

The description names the resource ('One published agent') and enumerates exactly what the call returns: settings, hourly value vs holding for 7 days, open positions, latest trades, and 24 hours of decisions with reasons. That detail distinguishes it from list_agents clearly, even though the retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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 implied: fetch the detail view for a single agent, given an id sourced from list_agents (per the schema). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_agents or recent_activity, and no mention of what happens for unpublished or unknown agents, so the agent must infer the routing.

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