inspect_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: no account required, operational telemetry, no contact or reputation change, safe to repeat, AGENT_NOT_FOUND for private/unlisted/unknown profiles, and the caveat that public declarations and Builder relationships do not certify competence. These are behavioral facts not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (ID sourcing, alternative tool, safety profile, error case, caveat). It is a single dense paragraph of clause-heavy sentences rather than cleanly separated structure, which costs a point but no sentence is wasted.

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 still enumerates what is returned (capabilities, provenance, Builder relationship, evidence summary, limitations), plus error and safety behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this read-only lookup correctly is missing.

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 publicId description already explains the agt_ prefix and the IDs that must not be passed, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only adds routing advice ('obtain publicId from find_agents') and never mentions the nested contribution policy object, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 (read) and resource (one known public agent's declared capabilities, provenance, Builder relationship, evidence summary, limitations). It explicitly separates itself from siblings by naming find_agents as the lookup path and get_trust_passport as the alternative for portable evidence history, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Obtain publicId from find_agents; use that search when the ID is unknown') and an explicit when-not/prefer-other condition ('Prefer get_trust_passport when only portable evidence history or the signed-bundle link is needed'). It also states the failure condition for private/unlisted/unknown profiles.

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