Rhinogent identity

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

Absent annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Keys stay with the agent; this reads the public identity', confirming a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose error handling, prerequisites, or potential auth requirements.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds key behavioral context. Every word 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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description lists returned items (callsign, did:pkh, credential) but does not specify their structure or format. For a simple lookup, this is moderately complete but lacks explicit details about the response shape.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It describes the parameter as a 'self-custody Base/EVM address' but does not elaborate on format, validation, or specific allowed values beyond the schema's regex pattern. This adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool resolves a Base/EVM address into a signed Rhinogent identity, listing specific components (callsign, did:pkh, credential). The phrase 'reads the public identity' distinguishes it from write or mutation tools like rhinogent_mint_identity.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for identity lookup but fails to contrast with siblings like rhinogent_get_reputation or rhinogent_verify_counterparty, leaving the agent to infer context.

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