get_attester_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the id is deterministically derived from the caller seed via the txbuilder, and that the call is side-effect free ('builds nothing and submits nothing'). It omits whether the shielded keys are stable across calls or any auth/caching behavior, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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?

A single dense sentence with the return contents front-loaded and the usage hint last; no filler. The nested parentheses around the derivation and the sender rationale make it slightly harder to parse than necessary, but every clause 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 zero-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description enumerates the returned fields, the derivation source, and the non-mutating guarantee — enough to call it correctly. What is left unexplained is where the caller seed comes from and whether the keys can change, which are secondary for invocation.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The implicit inputs (caller seed) are explained in the context of the derived output rather than as callable parameters.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: returns the attester id this server builds under, plus network, shielded address and two public shielded keys. It also implicitly separates itself from verify_attestation, which checks attestations rather than reporting the identity. An agent can tell exactly what it gets back without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it to check verify_attestation results against the identity that will appear on-chain', naming the sibling it complements. It does not spell out when NOT to use it, but the closing 'builds nothing and submits nothing' removes the main ambiguity for an agent deciding between it and build/sponsor tools.

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