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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape of the payload — execution, tool, knowledge, escalation config, triggers, collections, prompt_text and auto_reply_rules — which materially helps an agent decide whether this call has the data it needs.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the returned-config bullets are scannable. The list is somewhat long but each item names a distinct config area an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned config sections, which is the main thing an agent needs to know before calling. Combined with complete annotation coverage and full parameter documentation, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, including the workspace-scoping semantics of in_workspace, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no format, no constraints on agent_id), making this a 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific AI agent') and the bullet list pins down exactly which config sections are returned, so the agent knows this is a full-config fetch rather than a summary. It does not explicitly name siblings such as agents_list or agents_trace_get, so differentiation is inferred from 'a specific agent' rather than stated.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The description never tells the agent to use agents_list for enumeration or agents_update for modification, nor does it state the prerequisite of having a valid agent_id.

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