voice_ai_get_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds nothing beyond the tool name—it does not explain that this is a read operation that returns agent configuration, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or response behavior. No added context to justify a higher score.

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 two-word phrase. While concise, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It does not front-load any useful information that would help an agent decide or execute correctly.

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 only two parameters and a simple read operation, the minimal description might suffice technically, but it omits the return format and any behavioral notes. Despite the high schema coverage, an agent gets no confidence about what the response contains or how to interpret the result, especially given there is no output schema.

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%: both agentId and locationId have inline descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so per the rubric the baseline 3 applies. It correctly relies on the schema, but offers no extra clarification.

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 is just "Get Agent" — a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what agent is fetched, by what identifier, or what the returned data represents. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like voice_ai_get_agents (plural) or conversation_ai_get_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether to pick this over voice_ai_get_agents for listing, or whether it is for retrieving a single agent by ID. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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