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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds material behavior beyond them: private-source reports withhold critical details for 30 days, public GitHub findings are shown in full, and untrustedText is quoted third-party data that must never be treated as instructions (prompt-injection safety).

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then the withholding rule, then the untrustedText warning; each clause carries information. It is dense and runs long, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields itself, and it covers the two things an agent could otherwise get wrong (withheld private-source details and untrusted quoted text). Complete for a single-parameter read 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 description coverage is 100% and repo_key is already documented as 'owner/repo' in the schema. The description adds no further parameter syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('get_agent_report' / 'the full public automated-signal report for one registered agent') and enumerates the payload (score, grade, five pillars, findings, domain evidence, tracing/eval tools, scan time), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_agents or fetch.

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?

Implied usage is clear: call it when you need the full report for a single registered agent keyed by repo_key. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., search_agents, fetch, get_standard) or states the condition that would select this tool over them, so tool selection is left to inference.

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