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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating what the returned data will include, especially 'what it never does without you,' which conveys an important boundary of the agent's autonomous behavior. This goes beyond a bare read operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and identifier, then lists the returned content. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the expected return content (purpose, safety boundaries, status, work summary). It does not explain the optional request_id parameter, but that is likely a correlation identifier and not central to calling the tool. Overall, an agent has enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains built_in_agent_id well by giving a format ('catalog id') and examples, but it does not mention request_id at all. This leaves one of the two parameters semantically undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('built-in agent'), and the key lookup mechanism ('by catalog id'), with concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes this single-item read tool from the sibling list tool by emphasizing 'one' and 'by catalog id'.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need details about a single built-in agent identified by catalog id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but 'one' versus the implied list tool is enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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