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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing a limitation of the payload itself — no revision config is returned — and where that data lives instead.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the follow-up sentence carries only the routing information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial and error.

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 read with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context about what the response omits and how to get it. Remaining gaps (e.g., not-found behavior, pagination-irrelevance) are minor for this operation.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage; the description's 'by ID' merely restates the agent_id field already fully documented by the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get an agent by ID'), which is unambiguous against the large sibling list, and further clarifies that the returned object excludes revision config. It stops short of differentiating from near-neighbors like getAgentMemoryFile or getAgentSuggestion, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Gives explicit routing: when you need a revision, use listAgentRevisions/getRevision, and getRevisionBody for large AOPs read by character range. There is no stated when-not for this tool itself (e.g., versus listAgents), but the alternative-path guidance is concrete and actionable.

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