Agent record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the record is 'signed by the log key' and carries 'inclusion proofs of its key events against the latest checkpoint', which tells the agent the output is cryptographically verifiable data rather than a live view.

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 verb and resource, but the body is one long sentence with heavily nested parentheses, especially the counts.work breakdown. Since an output schema already exists, that enumeration is partly redundant, making the description denser than it needs to be.

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 single-parameter, idempotent read with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the definition supplies ample context about what is returned and its provenance. The only meaningful omission is any indication of when to prefer this over read_agent/find_agents.

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' parameter is documented as a handle or 64-character key fingerprint. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Read an agent's portable record') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (keys/rotations, handle history, identity links, counts, proofs). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'read_agent' or 'find_agents', leaving ambiguity about which agent-reading tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The parenthetical mentions of 'find_work worker' and 'work_proofs' describe field contents rather than routing guidance, so the agent must infer selection from context alone.

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