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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' clearly signals a read-only operation with no side effects, which is the core behavioral disclosure. It does not discuss not-found behavior or permissions, but for a simple fetch-by-id tool this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and scoping condition. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It clearly indicates the input and the expected scope of output ('full details'). The lack of an output schema and any note about invalid/missing ids is a minor gap but not critical for simple retrieval.

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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter as 'The agent UUID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond restating that retrieval is by id, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('agent'), and a clear scope ('a single agent by id'). It distinguishes itself from list_agents and get_agent_plan_limits by emphasizing single-agent full-detail retrieval.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need full details for one specific agent by id. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for prefering a different tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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