identify_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns specific fields and that the description is 'if known', implying optionality. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the app does not exist, or any error behavior. This is partial transparency but leaves gaps.

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 packs the core purpose, the resource, and the expected return fields. No unnecessary words or repetition; every element earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it lists the key return fields. It could optionally note the lack of an output schema or clarify the meaning of 'protocol' and 'role', but given the simplicity, this is sufficient for most agents.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter appId has a description 'Application ID on Voi'. The tool description reiterates the same concept without adding additional format constraints, examples, or nuances, so the description does not add much beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb 'Identify' with a clear resource 'Voi application' and states the exact output fields (protocol, role, type, description). It distinguishes from sibling tools like identify_asset (which handles assets) and get_contract_role (which focuses on role specifically).

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 usage when you have an application ID and need its basic metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_protocol or get_contract_role, nor does it mention any exclusions or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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