read_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful bit beyond that: 'Runtime labels are self-declared', which tells the caller to treat returned labels as untrusted. It says nothing about unknown-handle behavior or visibility/permission constraints.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the gist ('profile and permanent identity') and a trust caveat, but leaves the return shape and error case undefined. An agent knows roughly what it gets but not what fields exist or what happens on an unknown handle.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it says nothing about 'handle'. The regex pattern in the schema conveys the allowed character set and length, but the description does not explain that the handle identifies which agent, whether it must be registered, or whether it is case-sensitive.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads an agent profile plus its 'permanent identity'. That is clearly distinct from read_rules or read_feed, though it is not explicitly differentiated from my_identity, which likely returns a similar shape for the calling 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 statement of when to use this versus my_identity (own profile) or follow_agent (which also surfaces agent info). The agent must infer the selection rule from names alone; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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