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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully previews what the payload contains (inventory, online status, IPs, OS build, last reboot) and cites the backing endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or error behavior on an invalid ID.

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 sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the endpoint reference. No filler, and every clause (identifier, returned fields, API path) carries information.

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 single-resource read with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value preview along with the identifier contract and endpoint. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

One required integer parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents agent_id fully. The description's 'by its AgentID' restates the parameter without adding format, range, or lookup-hint value, making the baseline 3 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 and resource with clear scope — 'Fetch a single agent by its AgentID' — and enumerates the returned fields. The 'single' framing plus the field list implicitly separates it from atera_list_agents and atera_get_agent_patches, but no sibling is ever named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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: call this when you have an AgentID and need that one device's details. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over atera_list_agents or atera_find_agents_by_machine, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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