get_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return data (profile, ratings, success rate, routing) and implies no side effects. While it could mention error handling or rate limits, the description is adequate for a simple fetch 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and output contents. It could mention potential errors or that the parameter is required, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter (agent_id) exists with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond its name, but the parameter is self-explanatory. However, given the lack of coverage, the description should provide more detail (e.g., format, constraints).

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 the tool fetches a full agent profile and includes specific details like ratings, success rate, and routing details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_org_agents (listing) and match_agents (matching).

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 explicitly advises using this tool after match_agents to inspect an agent before transacting, providing clear context and an alternative scenario.

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