Lookup Agent

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

Annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries most of the burden. 'View' and 'public profile' imply a non-mutating, generally accessible operation, and the description lists return fields. However, it does not disclose potential errors, exact-match behavior, authentication needs, or any other side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and target, and the second lists the key returned data. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the resource, input type, and returned fields. It could be slightly stronger by noting when to prefer sibling tools, but that is already handled under usage guidance.

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 'handle' parameter is already described as 'Agent handle or name to look up.' The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') with a clear resource ('any agent's public profile') and the lookup method ('by handle or name'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like civitae_profile or civitae_browse.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to look up a specific agent's public profile by handle or name. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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