lookup_identity

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

The description implies a read operation by stating 'look up' and indicates what is returned, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, prerequisites, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is moderately informative.

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?

Two well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, no redundancy. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and output, but lacks details on error cases, behavior when address not found, and explicit read-only indication.

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 input schema has one parameter 'address' with a pattern but no description, and the tool description does not provide any additional context about the parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not explain the parameter beyond implying its use.

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 explicitly states the action 'look up', the resource 'AI agent's on-chain identity', and lists specific sub-items (ERC-8004 registration, ENS name, contract metadata). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like lookup_reputation and resolve_agent_uri.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_scam or verify_agent. The description lacks any context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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