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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the data comes from a community archive and covers only the Olympia mainnet window (July 2021 to 28 September 2023), which tells the agent when results will be empty or stale — something no structured field conveys.

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 accepted-format list is front-loaded and the routing instruction closes the description, so the structure serves the reader. The nested parenthetical explaining Babylon address resolution is dense enough to require a second read, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what comes back; "returns its essentials" plus the pointer to the specific olympia_* tool is adequate for a dispatcher whose real payload is delivered downstream. The data-source and date-range caveats round out what an agent needs before calling.

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% for the single 'value' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does add concrete format examples (rdx1…, rv1…, <symbol>_rr1…, 64 hex) beyond the schema's generic 'Any Olympia identifier', but it doesn't discuss length limits, case sensitivity, or what happens on a malformed value.

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 names a specific verb (identifies) and resource (any Radix Olympia identifier) and then enumerates the exact identifier families it accepts: rdx1 accounts, rv1 validators, <symbol>_rr1 tokens, 64-hex transaction ids, and Babylon account_/resource_/validator_ addresses. That enumeration distinguishes it from the getter siblings (olympia_get_account, olympia_get_transaction) without the agent needing to open a 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?

"Start here, then use the specific olympia_* tool it points to" is explicit entry-point guidance and a clear handoff instruction, which is exactly what a dispatcher needs. It stops short of naming the near-duplicate siblings (olympia_from_babylon, convert_olympia_address, find_olympia_address) or saying when to prefer those over this tool, leaving some overlap unresolved.

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