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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds the underlying GET endpoint and an example machine-name format, confirming read semantics, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or empty/multiple matches beyond the vague 'agent(s)'.

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, zero filler. The purpose and lookup key are front-loaded, and the API endpoint is a compact, useful trailing detail.

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 parameterized read lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the key format, and the endpoint. Only the behavior of pagination and multiple matches is left implicit, which is minor for this tool type.

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%, so machine_name, page, and items_in_page are already documented. The description only adds an example machine name (DESKTOP-4F2K9), which reinforces format but does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Find), resource (agent(s) installed on a machine), and lookup key (machine name), with a concrete example value. It is distinguishable from siblings like atera_get_agent and atera_list_agents, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the lookup key: use this when you know a machine name rather than an agent ID. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tools (atera_get_agent for agent IDs, atera_list_agents for enumeration).

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