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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects. The description adds the underlying REST mapping (GET /agents/{id}), which is useful orientation but not behavior an agent needs to invoke the call; it says nothing about error behavior for missing ids or rate limits.

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, with the core action stated first and the endpoint detail trailing. Every clause 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-parameter read tool whose annotation already declares the safety profile, this covers what an agent needs. With no output schema, a brief note on the returned agent shape would have made it fully self-contained, but the gap is minor for a conventional REST GET.

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 the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema, so the description carries no extra burden here. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Get a single agent by id') and pins the scope to one record via the id, which implicitly separates it from the sibling freshdesk_list_agents. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated by name.

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: the caller needs an agent id and wants one record rather than a list. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over freshdesk_list_agents, nor any note about prerequisites such as permissions or whether the agent must exist.

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