Get Agent Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return content: a complete agent profile including capabilities, limitations, pricing, and recommendations. This goes beyond the bare annotations, though it doesn't cover edge cases or failure modes.

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 concise, well-organized with Args and Returns sections, and contains no redundant or fluffy language. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's function and output.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the input, and the return value in sufficient detail. The annotations cover the safety and idempotency aspects, and the schema fully documents the parameter. No significant gaps remain.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'slug' parameter with examples, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description repeats some of this information, adding 'agent identifier' as additional context but not significantly expanding on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get full details for a specific agent from the YAGOO directory.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, compare, and list operations. The verb 'Get' and specific resource type make the action unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving details for a specific agent identified by slug, which is clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but with sibling tools like yagoo_search and yagoo_compare, the intent is clear enough. Slight deduction for not explicitly discussing trade-offs.

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