identify_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns, including the conditional 'if known', implying a lookup operation with no side effects. While it doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness or error behavior, 'identify' strongly suggests a read-only action, and the return-field disclosure adds 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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the output information efficiently, with no wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and the 'if known' caveat, covering the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'appId' is already described as 'Application ID on Algorand'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Identify'), the resource ('Algorand application'), and the lookup criterion ('by ID'). It also lists the returned information (protocol, role, type, description), which helps distinguish it from siblings like identify_asset or get_protocol.

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 provides clear context: use this when you have an Algorand application ID and want its metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific wording differentiates it from other tools like identify_asset or get_contract_role.

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