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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by noting a side effect: 'Also sets this agent as the session's current agent context (no server-side change).' This is important behavioral context beyond the read-only claim. It also mentions auth requirements and error handling. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the side effect, auth prerequisites, error details, and a pointer to the sibling list tool. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently conveys all necessary guidance without fluff.

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 single-parameter get tool with read-only annotations, the description covers all aspects an agent needs: what it returns, the auth prerequisite, error semantics, and how to obtain the id. The output format isn't described, but since no output schema exists, the description's mention of the full config content suffices. No gaps are evident.

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 description coverage is 100% and includes a description for agentId that points to the list tool. The description adds context that the id is for a 'saved agent' and that it must belong to the current app (via the 404 error). This reinforces the schema meaning and adds a constraint, so it exceeds the baseline 3.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one reusable saved agent's full config by id', and specifies the exact contents: prompt, LLM, RAG settings, visibility. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `ethora-agents-list-v2` by mentioning that it fetches full config for a single agent, whereas list retrieves ids. The technical path `GET /v2/agents/:agentId` adds precision.

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?

Explicitly states the required auth mode ('app-token mode' after `ethora-app-select` + `ethora-auth-use-app`), and provides error conditions with 401/403 and 404 meanings. It also references how to get the agentId via `ethora-agents-list-v2`. This clearly guides when and how to use the tool, including prerequisites and where to obtain inputs.

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