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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation with a closed-world scope. The description adds useful detail about returned content, but does not add operational behavior such as auth requirements, rate limits, not-found handling, or response shape beyond the enumerated fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and stays to one sentence with no filler. The enumeration of channels and returned artifacts is long but each item conveys specific value, though the channel list is slightly verbose for a description.

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?

With a simple one-parameter read-only schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It compensates for the absence of an output schema by enumerating expected return fields, though it lacks error/empty-state or pagination-style guidance.

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 sole agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from list_agents. The description does not add parameter syntax, constraints, or source guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Show one agent," then enumerates the exact details returned, including widget status, build progress, channels, install code, knowledge sources, and latest knowledge-add result. This clearly distinguishes it from list_agents and from mutation siblings like add_knowledge or set_website_widget.

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 single-agent lookup context is clear, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative routing. It relies on the reader to infer that list_agents is the way to discover agent_id and that other getters cover conversations or reports.

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