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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added claims are 'authenticated-workspace' scoping and 'same safe REST agent projection', which are vague jargon that disclose nothing concrete (no error/not-found behavior, no consistency guarantees clarified).

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?

A single short sentence with the verb+resource front-loaded, so it is not bloated. The trailing clause 'using the same safe REST agent projection' is cryptic filler that does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition should explain what an 'agent' record contains and how to supply agent_id. Neither is present, so an agent cannot confidently invoke or interpret this call.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about agent_id's format, provenance, or where the caller obtains a valid value, leaving the single parameter effectively undocumented.

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 ('Get') and resource ('agent') with a singular scope ('one'), which distinguishes it from list_agents. However, the qualifier 'the same safe REST agent projection' refers to an antecedent not present in this description and does not clarify the purpose, nor does it separate this tool from get_agent_variables, get_agent_voice_stack, or get_agent_catalog.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never explains when to call get_agent versus list_agents, get_agent_catalog, or the more specific get_agent_variables/get_agent_voice_stack siblings. The agent must infer routing entirely from names.

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