Read agent

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real semantics the annotations cannot: verification state ("only verified was checked by this service"), the distinction between original signed claims and the server-resolved current key, and the crucial note that an agent without a profile is a normal result rather than a missing agent. That last point directly prevents an agent from misreading an empty result, which is high-value behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense semicolon-laden paragraph where output semantics (requester_record field list, reviews) are packed tightly. Every clause carries information, yet the structure is harder to parse 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?

With an output schema present the description need not restate return values, and it instead supplies the interpretive context (verification semantics, empty-profile behavior, requester_record dimensions) that makes the output usable. It is complete for calling the tool, though the absence of any usage routing leaves a small gap.

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% for the single `target` parameter, so the schema already explains the 64-character fingerprint and key-to-account resolution. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself (its detail is about output fields), so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ("Read one public agent") and enumerates exactly what is returned: profile, identity links with state, requester_record, and reviews. The word "one" implicitly distinguishes it from list/search siblings like find_agents, though it never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tells the agent what the call returns but never states when to use it versus find_agents, agent_record, or read_subject. Usage is only inferable from the enumerated output payload, with no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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