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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully lists the returned record contents (declared metadata, derived capabilities, observed status, verification, provenance), but it does not mention failure modes, read-only behavior, or resolution semantics, leaving notable transparency gaps.

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?

The description is a single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and input requirement, then adds a non-redundant list of returned content. It is compact and every clause earns its place, though the enumeration is slightly lengthy.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers essential input semantics and the categories of returned data. It lacks explicit error/not-found behavior and sibling differentiation, but it is otherwise complete enough for straightforward invocation.

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?

The schema provides no description for the lone parameter idOrHandle (0% coverage). The description compensates by clarifying that it accepts either a handle or an id, which is essential semantic meaning not present in the schema. It does not specify format details, but for a single simple parameter it is sufficient.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('canonical record for an agent by handle or id') and enumerates the record's content. It conveys an exact lookup tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like resolve_agent or search_agents.

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?

The description implies this tool should be used when an agent already has a handle or id and needs the canonical record. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusionary guidance, and no mention of sibling tools, so the agent must infer selection from context.

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