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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds what the payload contains (strategy, limits, stats), which is real added value, but omits error behavior for missing IDs and says nothing about data freshness despite the open-world annotation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by parameter guidance. No waste, though the opening fragment is slightly clipped.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the return-content summary and ID format. Only edge-case behavior for invalid IDs is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does compensate meaningfully by explaining that `id` is either a demo string like 'atlas-01' or a numeric ERC-8004 agent ID passed as a string, which the bare schema does not convey.

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-less but clear resource retrieval: 'One agent with its strategy, limits and stats.' An agent can tell this is a single-record fetch, implicitly distinct from list_agents, though no sibling is named 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?

The description covers accepted ID forms ('demo ID (e.g. atlas-01) or an ERC-8004 agent ID'), which is useful, but says nothing about when to prefer this over list_agents or what happens for an unknown ID. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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