decode_uritoken_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is 'not reversible offline,' which discloses a key behavioral trait. It also implies no side effects (offline, read-only). However, it does not describe error handling or return format, which would improve transparency.

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 (one sentence with a parenthetical) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value; no redundant language.

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 decode tool with one input and no output schema, the description covers purpose and structure but omits what the output looks like (e.g., fields of the explained structure). It is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity about the return value.

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 single parameter uriTokenId has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds only that it is a 'URIToken ID' to be validated, but offers no guidance on format, length, or examples. The parameter meaning relies entirely on the tool name and generic type.

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's action ('Validate a URIToken ID and explain its structure') and provides specific details about the resource (SHA512-Half of issuer||URI). This distinguishes it from sibling decode tools like decode_hook_can_emit or decode_tx_blob, which target different data types.

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 includes 'Offline' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account_uritokens (which might list URITokens) or other decode tools. No explicit context about when to validate vs fetch or prerequisites is given.

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