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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read of historical capability data but discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or what the response contains. Only the safety-intent framing is offered.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the usage directive. Nothing is wasteful, though the terse fragment style borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys purpose and timing but leaves the meaning of 'blast-radius' and the returned data opaque. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would notice.

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 is one parameter. The description only implies 'agent key' maps to agent_key; it adds no format, source, or validation meaning beyond the schema. With low coverage it should compensate more than it does.

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 resource ('historical capability for an agent key') and introduces a scope concept ('blast-radius'), so an agent can grasp the intent. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like get_agent_passport, but the resource is named clearly enough to distinguish.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use directive: 'Use before trusting an agent with funds.' That is a real usage context. It names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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