identity_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no signature is required and the two accepted auth mechanisms (x402 or IDENTITY_API_KEY), which is genuine behavioral context. It does not describe return shape, failure modes, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the auth note follows the core purpose immediately and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter read-only status check with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it conveys the question answered and the auth requirement. Only the boolean/status return nature could be stated more explicitly.

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 'wallet' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description references 'a wallet' but adds no syntax or format 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?

The description states a specific question the tool answers ('Does a wallet currently hold a valid, unexpired assertion?'), which is a clear verb+resource purpose. It distinguishes itself by nature from check-style siblings, but never explicitly names alternatives like identity_get_challenge or identity_submit_response.

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?

'No signature needed. x402 or IDENTITY_API_KEY.' signals when/how it can be called, implying a lightweight read that does not require the signature flow of other identity tools. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusions.

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