arc_agent_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure in detail (on-chain owner, agentURI, RAW card, validation report with evidence per flag) and explicitly mentions 'any fetch error' is included, which covers error handling. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but 'get' implies non-mutating, and the description focuses on retrieval and validation.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core content (full record) and then details components. It is efficient and packs relevant information without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured, but it's well within acceptable length.

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-record retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the response will contain, including the validation report's evidence details. It does not mention pagination (not needed for a single record) or any specific limitations, but the coverage is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes agentId as 'The ERC-8004 agentId (an ERC-721 tokenId on the registry).' The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('get'), a precise resource (full record for one Arc agent by agentId), and enumerates the returned content (owner, agentURI, RAW card, validation report with evidence). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like arc_agents_list (list) and arc_agent_card (likely a simplified card view).

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use instruction: 'Use this to check the directory's claims yourself rather than trusting them.' This implies the tool is for verification and deep inspection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling context and the phrase 'rather than trusting them' provide adequate guidance.

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