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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the full safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no note on what is returned, error behavior for a bad id, or localization effect of lang), so it contributes little past the structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by routing guidance; little is wasted. The clause 'to give the details of one agent' mildly restates the opening verb.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage, existing annotations, and no output schema to explain, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it. Only marginal gaps (bad-id behavior) remain.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description only adds that the id comes from list_agents, a small reinforcement rather than new syntax or format detail.

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 ('Get one agent by id') and gives example ids, so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It is distinguishable from list_agents and search_carragent by scope, though the parenthetical example list is slightly ambiguous about whether those are ids or agent categories.

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?

Explicitly sequences the tool: 'Use after list_agents or search_carragent,' naming the alternatives that precede it. No when-not guidance is given, but the workflow position is clear.

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