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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: an unknown id returns an isError result with a specific message, and the endpoint is free with no auth required.

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 front-loaded with the core action and remains a single readable paragraph. Some return-field enumeration is redundant because an output schema exists, but the extra sentences still carry useful semantics such as funds_or_keys meaning and no-auth access.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what is needed: id source, error behavior, auth status, and key field semantics. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is a 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain the id from list_bots or changes_since and by reminding the caller not to include the bot: prefix, which reduces invocation errors.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return one verified public agent or bot by id. It clearly distinguishes this lookup from browsing with list_bots, and the returned fields are enumerated, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly explains where the required id comes from: list_bots entries[].id or changes_since after removing the bot: prefix. It also names list_bots as the tool for browsing every entry, giving a clear alternative when the agent does not already have an id.

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