Get Agent Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('from the trust network') and what data is returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or access requirements.

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 concise sentences with no waste. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the tool's purpose and scope, the second lists output fields.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and annotations present, the description is largely complete. It states what is returned and distinguishes from entities. It could optionally mention behavior for non-existent IDs, but is adequate overall.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'agent_id' with an example. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the verb 'get' and resource 'agent profile', specifies it is from the trust network and not an entity/product, and lists the fields returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like nanmesh.agent.list and nanmesh.entity.get.

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?

Usage is implied for looking up an agent by ID, and the description notes it is not for entities/products, providing some distinction. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions or alternative suggestions.

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