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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that the response is the complete definition rather than a summary, but says nothing about the definition's contents, size, or failure behavior for unknown names.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier ('one agent') appears before the mechanism ('by name').

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'full definition' contains (prompt, model, tools, etc.). It conveys the shape only vaguely, leaving the agent to discover the payload structure on first call.

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%, so the schema fully documents it. The description's 'by name' merely restates the schema field and adds no format, casing, or resolution details beyond it.

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?

Specific verb ('Load') plus specific resource ('the full definition of one agent'), scoped to a single record by name. It implicitly contrasts with list_agents by emphasizing 'full definition' and 'one agent', though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'full definition' and 'by name' suggest a fetch-after-list pattern, but the description never states when to use this versus list_agents or when not to use it. The only explicit chaining hint ('as listed by list_agents') lives in the schema, not the description.

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