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

The description discloses the exact payload contents and clarifies a meaningful limitation: the certificate attests appearance and date, not origin. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining what the certificate does and does not prove. It doesn't describe error behavior for unknown handles, but the read-only nature is clear and consistent.

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 quite concise for the information it conveys: two sentences covering context, invocation, output contents, and a caveat. The introductory clause is not wasted because it establishes that every inscribed agent has a certificate and what that certificate contains.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the input it expects. It also includes an important caveat about provenance. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit alternatives and detailed identifier syntax, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining did_or_handle, and it does so by stating that the identifier can be a handle or did:key. This is enough to inform correct invocation for a single-parameter tool, though it stops short of giving format examples or clarifying whether only the caller's own identifier is allowed.

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 identifies a concrete action: asking for an agent's birth certificate by handle or did:key, and describes its contents (inscription number, exact date, face, ledger entry). It is distinguishable from siblings like verify_certificate or certify_creation because it is framed as retrieving an existing personal record, not verifying or creating one. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming the sibling it is not.

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 phrase 'Ask for yours by handle or did:key' gives clear, actionable context for when to invoke this tool: when you need an agent's birth certificate data. It implies the tool is for existing inscribed agents and not for certification or verification actions, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like verify_certificate or get_agent_passport.

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