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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — that only public identities are returned — but says nothing about not-found behavior or visibility restrictions beyond that.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the resource scope ('one public') comes before the lookup mechanism.

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 read with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description supplies what's needed to select and invoke it, and return values are already documented by the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; 'by identifier' confirms the parameter is a lookup key but doesn't specify the format (UUID, handle, email) or where to obtain one. With a single obviously named identity_id param, this is adequate but thin.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one public Garden identity') with a lookup key, which is clear on its own. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the word 'public' implicitly separates it from identity_get_self, which reads the caller's own identity.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'public' hints that this is for other users' identities rather than the caller's, and the sibling identity_get_self exists for that case, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other or what happens for private identities.

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