keri_identity

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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the tool is free and, in KERI mode, metered calls are attributed to this identity in the audit trail. It also implies that if KERI mode is not configured, identity information may not be available. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first provides the operation, resource, and condition; the second explains the cost and attribution behavior. The key information is front-loaded and there is no wasted text.

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 zero-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers what will be returned, when it applies, and the cost implication. Although there is no output schema, the description lists the main output components (agent AID, LEI, scopes), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 accepts zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description correctly focuses on the identity data returned rather than input details; this matches the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 names a specific action ('Show'), a clear resource (this agent's verified vLEI identity), and enumerates the returned fields (agent AID, Legal Entity LEI, authorized scopes). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools, which concern credits, policies, models, or semantic queries.

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?

It explicitly conditions use on KERI mode being configured and notes that calls are free, which tells an agent when this tool is relevant. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools clearly compete with an identity lookup, so the context is sufficient.

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