xete_lookup_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states it is a lookup (read) and what it confirms, but it does not disclose behavior on failure, authentication needs, or return value beyond the output schema. Adequate for a simple lookup but not rich.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant words; it immediately states the action and purpose. Ideal length and front-loaded structure.

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 lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, target, and messaging relevance. It could mention failure behavior or return type, but the output schema handles return. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, but the description explicitly states lookup is 'by agent id or alias', directly explaining the single parameter. It adds the clarification that it refers to another agent (not self), though it lacks format or example details.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('another xete agent') with a clear purpose: confirm existence and published encryption key for messaging. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (my_identity, send_message, check_inbox).

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?

Implied usage: use to verify an agent can receive messages before sending. The parenthetical 'i.e. you can message it' connects to the send_message sibling, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative exclusions.

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