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 a key limitation: 'Backend pending (Q3 2026)' and claims W3C conformance. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and result, the second adds conformance and status. Every word contributes value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, output contents, standard conformance, and availability status. It could improve by noting that the tool may return errors until the backend is live, or by explaining how this relates to sibling tools, but overall it is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100% (the 'did' parameter is fully described in the schema). The description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Resolve a DID to its public profile' and enumerates the profile contents (display name, verification methods, service endpoints, Hive trust metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on trust scores, attestations, and verification.

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 that this tool resolves a DID profile, which implicitly differentiates it from trust/attestation tools. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternative references, though the purpose alone is enough for basic orientation.

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