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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying 'Creates no process, identity, software, or wallet authority' and noting the output is 'host-neutral.' There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is tightly written in two sentences: one states the return value, the other clarifies the lack of side effects. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, a clear output schema signal, and strong annotations, the description provides nearly everything needed. It adds clarity about portability and non-creation, though the exact meaning of 'bootstrap suggestion' could be slightly more explicit.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter, tokenId, as an 'NFH token id', with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return canonical portable identity Markdown and a host-neutral bootstrap suggestion.' It also clarifies a non-action scope with 'Creates no process, identity, software, or wallet authority.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_agent_entry or get_agent_wallet_onboarding, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives useful usage context by framing the tool as an identity-bootstrap read operation and explicitly ruling out side effects like process or wallet creation. It does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or name alternatives, but the context communicates when the tool is appropriate.

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