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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it performs no network access, reports only locally configured identities, and specifies that the signing key may not be configured. This is appropriate and does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence clearly states the action and uses a colon to introduce a concise list of outputs. Every clause adds information, with no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only local utility, the description adequately covers all returned information: the did:key, the default nick, and the identity note publication location. There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the return content for an agent; nothing critical appears missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description fully clarifies what the tool reports, and no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact resource ('this server's identities'), then enumerates the three concrete pieces of information returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from the network-oriented sibling tools by stating it operates 'without touching the network'.

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 'without touching the network' gives clear context that this is a local, offline identity lookup, which implies use when the agent needs server identity details rather than network operations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a zero-parameter utility.

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