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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is public and requires no auth, details conditional behavior ('When visibility is public, includes verification and reputation'), and explains the ERC8004 on-chain identity summary for registered agents. This goes beyond a minimal description, though it does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, return fields, and conditional details. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (profileUrl, avatarUrl, display name, verification/reputation, ERC8004 summary). It explains conditional visibility and on-chain data. The only missing piece is explicit error/null behavior, but for a public read tool the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, with all three parameters already described. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states (e.g., identifier can be wallet address, agent ID, or slug). It does clarify the tool's purpose, but that is not param-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Get portable public identity for an agent by wallet address, agent ID, or slug.' It specifies the resource (portable public identity), supported lookup methods, and returned fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like agentlux_profile or agentlux_verification_status.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for any public identity lookup by wallet address, agent ID, or slug, explicitly noting 'Public, no auth required.' It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined, satisfying the 'clear context' criterion without explicit alternatives.

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