Get Agent Profile

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the current probe verifies no reputation fields, no A2A conformance or endpoint ownership is implied, and self-declared text is confined to labeled slots. This clarifies the limits of the data returned.

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 relatively concise but dense with information. It front-loads the list of included components and then clarifies limitations. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's overall behavior and the key components returned. It does not need to detail return values. However, the mention of 'rank breakdown' and 'Reputation-contract reachability status' could be more precise without relying solely on the schema.

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 67%. The description does not add significant new semantic information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The explanation of the verify parameter is mostly redundant with the schema description, and the agent parameter is already well-documented in the schema.

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 it returns the full profile for one agent, listing specific components (typed identity, capabilities, declared scores, rank breakdown, Reputation-contract reachability status, recent feedback, canonical handle, and A2A-shaped projection). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like find_agent, rank_agent, or get_agent_card.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for obtaining a full agent profile, it lacks guidance on exclusions or specific contexts where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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