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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It does: it discloses that unlisted/suspended/private profiles are unavailable and that the Builder is shown only if available, which are useful non-obvious behaviors.

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 tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the action and output scope, the second adds the availability caveat. No filler or duplication of schema/annotation information.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description lists the output domains and access constraints, which is nearly complete. It does not specify the format/error behavior for unavailable profiles, but the caveat is clear enough for invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It implies publicId identifies a single public agent and that private/unlisted/suspended IDs will fail, but it never mentions publicId by name or explains how to obtain/format it. For a single self-explanatory required parameter this is adequate, but not rich.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and clearly bounded resource ('one public agent') and enumerates the returned facets: identity, Builder, capabilities, MCP/A2A info, evidence, reputation, Trust Passport, and uncertainties. This scope separates it from the sibling discovery tool find_agents and the single-purpose passport tools.

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 description implies when to use it (you want a full profile of one public agent) and gives a clear exclusion (unlisted/suspended/private profiles are unavailable), but it never names alternatives such as get_trust_passport or find_agents or states when to prefer them.

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