Get agent details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious "no account" auth requirement plus what the response contains (endpoints, per-tool input schema, pricing tier/price/key requirement, uptime, latency, reputation). It does not mention rate limits or caching, but that is a minor omission against a rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then payoff, then routing — nothing is wasted, though the long compound first sentence and the dense enumeration of return fields make it heavier than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the returned JSON object contains, and it covers sourcing the id, safety, and alternates. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 single `id` parameter is already documented with format and example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the provenance clue ("the id that search_agents returned"), which is useful for sourcing the value but not for syntax.

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 precise verb+resource ("Returns everything the registry knows about one listed agent") and then enumerates the returned payload — endpoints, tools with input schemas, pricing, uptime, latency, reputation. It also names the differentiating siblings (get_agent_liveness, verify_endpoint), so an agent can distinguish it without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("after search_agents to decide whether and how to call an agent") and routes two adjacent cases to alternatives: get_agent_liveness for check history and verify_endpoint for unlisted URLs. Both the when and the when-not are given.

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