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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the name: no read-only confirmation, no auth/permission requirements, no behavior when the id is unknown or inaccessible. 'Full details' gestures at scope but doesn't define what is returned.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial lookup, though it is arguably too terse to earn full marks.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least sketch what 'full details' includes or note failure behavior for an unknown id.

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% and the single id parameter is documented as 'The agent UUID'. The description's 'by id' adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (fetch) and resource (agent) with the scoping qualifier 'single agent by id', which contrasts implicitly with list_agents and crm_list_workspace_agents. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings for differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over list_agents, list_agents_with_stats, or crm_list_workspace_agents, nor on prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid id already in hand). The 'by id' phrasing implies lookup, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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