get_identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the owner-vs-working-wallet distinction (payouts and reputation accrue to the owner) and the error behavior when the id is unknown.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the semantic distinction, then the failure mode. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it names the two meaningful fields plus the failure case. It stops short of enumerating any other identity fields (e.g. metadata or URIs) an agent might receive, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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% and the single agentId parameter is fully documented with a pattern and example. The description only restates the parameter name in parentheses, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (ERC-8004 identity) and names exactly what is returned: the owner and working wallet. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_identity_reputation or balances by scoping the payload, but never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the payload description (call it when you need to know who owns an agent or which wallet operates it), and the failure condition 'Fails if the id does not exist' gives a useful boundary hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to sibling tools.

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