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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: which fields may be exposed, opt-in rules for operator names, exclusion of contact and Connect IDs, and a clear prompt-injection warning about returned text.

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 in the first sentence, and the following two sentences earn their place by covering privacy limits and untrusted-content handling. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 low-complexity read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, public-field scope, privacy filtering, and content-safety expectations. The main gaps are the undocumented 'id' parameter and the absence of any exact return-shape detail, though the field examples partially compensate.

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 0%, and the sole required parameter 'id' is never explained. The description does not clarify what kind of identifier it expects, its format, or what happens for invalid or non-approved agent IDs.

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: 'Get one approved agent's public fields.' The singular 'one' and the 'approved' qualifier distinguish it from listing or searching siblings such as list_agents.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named (e.g., list_agents for multiple agents or check_agent_trust for trust details). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and purpose.

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