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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at read-only lookup by saying "need its registered record," but discloses nothing about permissions, not-found or private/deleted agent behavior, or whether the returned profile is cached or live.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the usage trigger and then the payload, with no filler or repetition.

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 lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the trigger and rough return contents. It leaves gaps around failure modes and access requirements that an agent would want before calling.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter. It clarifies that the parameter is a known agent name (non-empty string per schema), but adds no format, case-sensitivity, or naming-convention detail.

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 names a specific retrieval: an agent's registered record plus its versioned canonical resource profile, keyed by a known name. It is clearly a lookup rather than a search or a passport inspection, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with search_agents or inspect_agent_passport.

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?

"Use when you already know an agent's name" gives a usable precondition and implicitly rules out the discovery path, but it never names the alternative (search_agents) or states what to do when the name is unknown or the agent doesn't exist.

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