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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing the payload's contents, which matters because no output schema exists. It does not cover failure behavior for unknown or archived ids, which is a minor gap.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core claim ('One agent in full') and then lists exactly the returned fields. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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 single-record read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description conveys enough about what comes back to set expectations. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (missing or archived agent), which is low-stakes here.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains agent_id and even its provenance. The description adds no meaning about the id format, validity, or error handling beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 specific resource and scope: a single agent fetched 'in full', enumerating what is included (instructions, model, tools/apps, tool approval setting, dashboard link). This clearly separates it from list/search or mutation siblings such as update_agent or archive_agent. It lacks an explicit verb ('read'/'retrieve'), but the intent is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The only routing hint, that the id comes from search_agents or use_template, lives in the schema rather than the description, so the description itself gives no usage context.

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