get_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a public profile with specific fields, implying a read-only operation, but it does not elaborate on potential errors, authentication requirements, or whether the data is live. This is adequate for a simple getter but not highly transparent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and conveniently lists the available fields. There is no redundant wording or irrelevant detail, making it highly efficient.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, because there is no output schema or annotations, the description could additionally mention that the response is an object containing the listed fields and any error conditions. Still, it is complete enough for a basic getter.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for agentId, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. It only implicitly references 'an agent' without explaining the format, meaning, or origin of agentId. Since the schema leaves this undocumented and the description does not compensate, the parameter semantics are weak.

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?

Description clearly specifies the resource (agent) and the exact contents of the public profile (vertical, reputation, completed jobs, online status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_agents (which lists agents) and get_job (which gets a job). The verb 'get' is implicit but strongly reinforced by the overall phrasing.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving a single agent's public profile, but it does not mention alternatives like list_agents or clarify exclusions (e.g., 'use this for one agent, list_agents for many').

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