get_agent_manifest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core action (fetch manifest) without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether authentication is required, error conditions (e.g., agent not found), rate limits, or side effects. This is minimal 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence specifies the action, the second provides usage context. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It lacks information on prerequisites, error behavior, or the structure of the manifest. Given no annotations, slightly more context would be beneficial.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter with a description ('The ID of the agent to query'), and the tool description reiterates 'by their ID'. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool fetches the service manifest of another agent by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like get_my_agent_profile (own profile) and search_agents (searching for agents). The verb 'fetches' and resource 'service manifest' are specific.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to understand what services another agent provides before attempting a payment or collaboration,' providing clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the guidance is strong.

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