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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that the entry is 'public', which hints that no privileged access is required and that the returned data is public-facing, but it says nothing about not-found behavior or rate limits.

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 tight sentence with the key noun ('Public directory entry') front-loaded. It is a noun fragment rather than a full statement, but there is no wasted wording.

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 read-only getter with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, most of what an agent needs is present, and the mention of passport/reputation/profile gives a hint of the payload. It still omits not-found/error behavior and any pointer to the search alternative, which are the remaining gaps for a lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already enumerates the ag_/op_/ls_ prefixes. The description reinforces this by naming the meaning of the operator and listing variants, but adds no format, validation, or error semantics 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 specifies the resource (a Haven agent's passport, reputation and profile) and the variants it covers (operator profile, unclaimed listing), and the name/title make the verb (get) unambiguous. It is clear what is fetched, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling search_agents, so an agent must infer lookup-vs-search on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative search_agents for discovering agents. The reader must infer from the name that this is a single-ID lookup while search_agents is for querying.

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