Read one agent in full

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

The description adds genuinely useful context beyond readOnlyHint=true: the required "agents" scope (an auth prerequisite annotations do not cover) and the conditional presence of a one-way script. It also enumerates returned content, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not discuss errors or missing-agent behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and ending with the scope requirement. No filler; only minor cost is the verbless opening noun phrase.

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, the description compensates by listing the returned configuration fields, and it notes the auth scope needed to call it. Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile. Only missing piece is when to prefer this over list_agents.

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% — the single agentId parameter is already documented as 'The agent's id, from list_agents.' The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for a schema that carries the full burden.

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 enumerates exactly what the call returns (prompt, voice/model params, knowledge base, handoff rules, integrations, script), which makes the purpose of reading a single agent's full configuration unambiguous. The verb itself is only implied by the title 'Read one agent in full' rather than stated in the description, and there is no explicit contrast with list_agents, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_agents (enumeration) or list_agents/get_call style siblings; the only hint is that agentId comes 'from list_agents'. Prerequisites like permissions are limited to the scope note, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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