identify_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. While 'identify' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what happens for unknown IDs (though 'if known' hints at optional description), or any error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose and return value. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and return contents adequately. It lacks usage exclusions and explicit read-only confirmation, but the low complexity keeps it largely 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for appId ('Application ID on Algorand'), so the schema handles the parameter meaning. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds minimal value and does not provide additional syntax or format details, keeping this at the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Identify' with the resource 'Algorand application by ID' and lists the exact return fields (protocol, role, type, description). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like identify_asset, which handles assets, and get_protocol, which covers protocols.

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 used when you have an Algorand application ID and want identifying information. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as identify_asset or get_contract_role, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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