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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by specifying 'raw' and listing return fields, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe error handling. The verb 'get' weakly implies safety, but this is not disclosed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and uses only necessary words. It is elegant and concise.

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 adequately conveys the purpose and return contents. However, it omits handling of missing agents and does not differentiate from sibling tools, leaving some context 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?

The schema already provides a description for agent_address ('Ethereum address of the agent'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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 clearly states the action (get) and the resource (raw Tracea registry record), and enumerates specific fields (owner, permission scope, financial cap, active status, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on actions, revocations, or verification.

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?

Usage context is implied by the focus on raw registry data, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over verify_agent or is_agent_revoked. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer boundaries.

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