Get this agent's identity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return value and signing context but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. However, as a read-only operation, the description is minimally adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds relevant context about identity usage.

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 no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the format of the did:key. However, for a simple identity retrieval tool with clear context from siblings, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to provide parameter details. The title and description effectively communicate the tool's simplicity.

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 returns the server's stable agent identity (did:key). It also connects to sibling tools by noting that receipts from attest_action are signed by this identity, distinguishing the tool's purpose.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to obtain the identity for verifying signatures), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparison with sibling tools.

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