agentsdetail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens on errors (e.g., invalid ID). The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, but it could be more front-loaded with key details (e.g., specifying it's for retrieving a single agent by ID). It earns a 4 for being concise, though it borders on under-specification.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., contact info, listings, performance metrics), which is crucial for an agent to understand the return value. With no output schema, the description should compensate by outlining expected data, but it fails to do so.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'The value of id field returned in .../agents/list endpoint'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. No compensation is needed given the high schema coverage.

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 'Get agent detailed information' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('agent detailed information'), but it's vague about what constitutes 'detailed information' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'agentslist' or 'agentsget_listings'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an agent ID from another endpoint), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'agentslist' for listing agents or 'agentsget_listings' for other agent-related data. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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