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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the scope (one agent by slug) and enumerates the response content, which is helpful for a read operation. It does not describe behaviors like error handling, exact-match requirements, or data freshness, but these are minor for a simple get tool.

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 with the primary purpose front-loaded ('Full detail for one agent by slug') followed by a compact, information-dense list of included fields. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it states the input requirement and the response contents. The only gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance among sibling tools, which is already accounted for in usage guidelines, so the overall completeness is strong.

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%, with the schema already explaining the slug parameter and providing an example. The description adds the phrase 'by slug', which reinforces the parameter's role but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 the exact action—get full detail for one agent by slug—and lists the specific fields returned (skills, auth, streaming/push support, tags, provider links). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools list_categories and search_agents, which operate over collections rather than a single agent.

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 implies its use case: when the full detail of a single agent is needed and a slug is available. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_agents for lookup, so the usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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