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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read from an on-chain contract (Veya.sol) and the identifier format, but does not state authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the read is public, error behavior if the agent is not found, or what the returned record contains.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and the key identifier constraint.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what it does and what identifier to supply. It still lacks details about return content and failure modes, which would help an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It specifies that the required parameter is a '16-byte UUID hex', which adds meaningful format context beyond the schema's minLength=32. However, it does not clarify casing, prefix handling, or other formatting details.

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'), resource ('agent record'), location ('from Veya.sol'), and identifier type ('by 16-byte UUID hex'). This clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like veya_public_get_agent or veya_read_environment_onchain.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as veya_public_get_agent or other on-chain read tools. It only names the operation, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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