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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'No authentication needed' and the negative scope statement that it does not create, connect or run the agent. That is useful disclosure beyond the structured fields, though no mention of rate limits or response shape.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, each sentence carrying distinct information (what it returns, auth profile, negative scope). No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a two-param tool with an unexplained enum, the description is not complete enough — an agent knows what it fetches but not how to choose a 'handoff' value.

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 0% and there are two parameters. The description explains neither 'slug' (how to identify the published agent) nor 'handoff', whose enum values (codex, claude-code, personal-agent) are entirely uninterpreted anywhere. With low coverage the description must compensate and it does not.

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+resource: 'Get a published agent's Markdown build brief.' This distinguishes it from the sibling get_agent by specifying the artifact is a Markdown spec/brief. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't name get_agent or explain how the two differ for an agent deciding between them.

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?

'to adapt to the user's systems' implies the use case, and 'it does not create, connect or run the agent' helps exclude wrong intent. However, it never names an alternative tool or states explicitly when to prefer get_agent_spec over get_agent, leaving routing to inference.

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