get_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (phone numbers, voice config, instructions) but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for unknown IDs, or payload size.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the payload; no boilerplate or redundancy.

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 simple read-only getter with annotations covering safety and a fully described single-param schema, the description is nearly sufficient; it helpfully enumerates the returned fields even though no output schema exists. Only the absence of any error/not-found behavior keeps this from being complete.

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 agent_id parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The agent ID'. The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (a specific agent) and enumerates the content returned: phone numbers, voice configuration, instructions. It clearly is not a list operation, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from list_agents or get_call siblings.

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 phrase 'a specific agent' implicitly signals that this is the lookup to use when you already have an agent_id, versus list_agents for enumeration, but no when/when-not guidance or alternative is stated explicitly.

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