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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' strongly signals a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no state is modified, nor does it mention behavior around ambiguous substring matches or response format. It adds some context by listing returned fields, but leaves safety guarantees implicit.

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 filler. It efficiently states the resource, the action, and the returned fields, making every word meaningful.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description plus schema is mostly complete: it names the target resource and the fields returned. However, with no output schema and no annotations, details like response shape and behavior when multiple agents match the substring are left unspecified, which prevents a perfect score.

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 already documents the single parameter as 'Agent id or name substring'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'one of your agents', so it does not improve on what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('one of your agents') and enumerates the exact details returned (mode, status, risk, triggers, last activity). This differentiates it from siblings like list_agents (which lists all agents) and get_agent_events (which focuses on events).

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 use when inspecting a single agent's current configuration or status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as get_agent_events, agent_trigger, or hedge_status. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing hints.

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