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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by stating the "Agents" permission requirement and by scoping the result to configuration only (no conversational output). It does not discuss response size or shape, which is the remaining 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?

Three tight sentences: payload contents first, usage instruction second, sibling routing third, permission note last. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, when to call it, what it does not return, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents agentId and its provenance from `agent_list`. The description adds no extra semantics about the id format, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("One agent's full configuration") and enumerates exactly what fields are returned: personality, intent, instructions, FAQs, follow-ups, booking action. It then explicitly separates itself from agent_logs, agent_query and agent_stats, so an agent can pick correctly 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?

Gives an affirmative condition ("Read this out to the user when they are choosing an existing agent") and names three sibling alternatives with the question each answers. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both explicit.

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