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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is retrieved but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether the agent must be verified, or what happens if the agent is not found. The description adds some context about the fields returned but lacks behavioral depth.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the key data categories. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit usage guidance.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It lists what is retrieved but doesn't explain return format, error behavior, or prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema covering parameters, this is a minimum viable description with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't clarify the format of agentId or accountId, but the schema descriptions are sufficient.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves agent status, verification state, webhook endpoints, and configuration. It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('agent'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_agents or get_server_status, though the specific fields mentioned help differentiate it.

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 implies usage for inspecting agent details, and the schema notes that agentId is optional and falls back to the active agent from context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_agents or get_server_status, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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