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

With no annotations, the description must indicate safety and side effects. It implies a read-only operation via 'Identify' and 'Returns', but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it mention any authentication or rate-limit requirements. For a simple query, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no redundant or extraneous details. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a simple query tool with no input parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and expected output. No additional context is necessary for an agent to use it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema completely covers the input. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (npub, display name, member record), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 action ('Identify') and the specific resource ('First Curator (Prime Authority)'), and it lists the exact return fields. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like lookup_member, which focus on general member lookups.

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 tool's narrow purpose makes its usage fairly self-evident, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a simple query tool, the implied usage is clear but not spelled out.

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