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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (name, affiliation, expertise, public intention, issuer signature) and explicitly stating no actions are performed, which goes beyond the annotations.

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: the first states the action and contained fields, the second underscores read-only nature. Every sentence is purposeful and information-dense, with no fluff.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content and behavioral scope. It is complete given the complexity.

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 100% and the description adds little beyond the schema's 'did' parameter description. The phrase 'DID로' mirrors the schema, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 queries a persona card by DID and lists its contents (name, affiliation, expertise, public intention, issuer signature). It also clarifies it's read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_persona_card' or 'verify_persona_did', though the read-only nature implies distinction.

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 explains this tool is for inquiry only and performs no actions, giving context for when to use (read-only lookup). It does not state when not to use or provide explicit alternatives, though sibling names are available.

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