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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies the operation as a getter and lists returned fields, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the agent does not exist.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently states the operation, scope, and returned fields.

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 two-parameter getter with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete and usefully enumerates return fields in the absence of an output schema. It could be stronger by clarifying how it differs from sibling identity tools and by noting error behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents agentId and chain, including the chain enum and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get structured metadata for one agent," and enumerates the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as actora_identity_get or actora_identity_list.

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 "for one agent" implies single-agent retrieval, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus actora_identity_get, actora_identity_list, or actora_identity_exists. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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