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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying REST call (GET /api/v3/agents/machine/{machineName}), which is consistent but adds little behaviorally; it says nothing about pagination/return behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by an example and endpoint reference. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention pagination/when multiple agents match, but no output schema exists and the core need is met.

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%, so the parameters (page, machine_name, items_in_page) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds value by giving a concrete machine-name example format ('DESKTOP-4F2K9'), which clarifies what kind of value is expected.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Find the agent(s) installed on a machine') and a concrete example machine name, making the lookup key explicit. It does not name any sibling tool (e.g. atera_get_agent, atera_list_agents) to differentiate itself, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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 comparison to alternatives like atera_get_agent (by ID) or atera_list_agents (all agents), and no statement of prerequisites. The intended scenario is only weakly implied by the phrase 'by its machine name'.

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