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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide—such as what happens when the agent is not found, whether the full agent object is returned, or any permission requirements. It does not contradict the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though it could have included a brief phrase about return value or use case without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one required parameter, and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit statement about the return value or not-found behavior, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with agent_id fully documented as a UUID. The description's 'by ID' phrase aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 'Get an agent by ID' clearly specifies the verb (get), the resource (agent), and the scoping mechanism (by ID). It distinguishes itself from related siblings like createAgent, updateAgent, deleteAgent, and listAgents, and from other getters like getAgentCaseTrigger and getAgentMemoryFile.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single agent when its ID is already known, nor does it point to listAgents for browsing or searching. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and parameter schema.

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