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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by naming the returned categories (paid-claim eligibility, onboarding, active work, review blockers, payout readiness) and signalling that the record is public, i.e. no auth scoping needed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and lookup key come first, and the enumerated content areas are packed efficiently without redundant phrasing.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the status categories returned, and annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of noting error behavior (e.g. unknown key id) or whether results are caller-scoped, small gaps for a simple read tool.

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% for the single parameter, and the description's 'by key id' only restates the schema's 'Public agent key id.' Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter 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 (read) and resource (one public Frantic agent status) with the lookup key (key id) and enumerates the content areas returned. It is clearly distinguishable from same-namespace siblings like get_claim, get_bounty, and update_profile without opening any 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?

The purpose implies when the tool applies (fetching a single agent's status), but the description never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_claim or read_ledger, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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