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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the scope 'you've claimed' adds useful context about the returned data. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it describe pagination, ordering, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 filler words. It directly states the action and scope, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what is returned (claimed free agent identities) and the format hint (<handle>.domani.run). The tool's simplicity means no additional context is needed; the description fully covers the task.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty properties). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail since there are none. It correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter information.

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 the tool lists 'free agent identities (<handle>.domani.run) you've claimed.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (claimed identities), and distinguishes from siblings like claim_identity and release_identity by specifying the scope. This is a precise and unambiguous definition.

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 implies the tool is for viewing identities the user has already claimed, which distinguishes it from other identity-related tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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