a4a_my_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: "Show" signals a non-mutating read, and the note "does not verify the network, receiver, or agent wake-up path" discloses an important limitation beyond the obvious. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., that the agent must be configured with a relay) or explicitly promise no side effects.

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 purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded in two tight sentences. The trailing "Returns:" block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and the caveat sentence earns its space.

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-parameter read of the agent's own address, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what comes back, and one meaningful limitation. An output schema exists, so the return detail is extra rather than necessary — nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the described behavior.

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 and resource: "Show this A4A agent's address (pubkey and apub)." An agent can immediately tell this is a read of its own identity, distinct from publishing tools like a4a_publish_profile. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting behavior, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 a concrete when-to-use: "Use this to give another agent or person a way to contact you directly (for example, in a QR code or by sharing the apub)." That is a clear context with a concrete example. No when-not-to-use condition or named alternative is given.

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