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

The description's 'read live from the agent' adds real context beyond the annotations: results reflect the agent's current published tools rather than a cached snapshot, which explains the openWorldHint. The safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) is already fully covered by annotations, so no further disclosure is needed.

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 up front and the payload enumerated after the colon. The parenthetical about live reading is doing work, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields including nested tool argument schemas, which is enough to call and interpret the result. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens for a non-tool agent or for an unknown agent key.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the agent param as the agentKey from search_agents. The description adds no extra semantics about the identifier format or fallback token-id handling, so baseline applies.

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 the resource and enumerates the returned payload (description, usage, price, published tool schemas), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with search_agents or call_agent, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the singular 'one agent'.

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 framing 'One agent's details' implies this is the detail lookup after a search, and the schema points at the agentKey from search_agents. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_agents or call_agent, and no prerequisites are listed.

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