get_vc

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

With no annotations, the description covers signing by issuer key, canonical serialization, and the reserved signType, providing good behavioral details beyond the basic operation.

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?

Well-structured with a clear parameter list followed by behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, though slightly long for a concise tool definition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions return value. It covers input and signing behavior but lacks details on storage location, errors, or permission requirements, which is acceptable given tool complexity.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with concrete examples (e.g., 'callTools', 'Ed25519') and clarifying purpose, adding significant value.

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 it issues a Verifiable Credential for a subject DID and stores it, with relation to get_did. This distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_vc or verify_vc.

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 implies usage for authorization and references get_did for subjectID, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid, nor compare to alternatives like list_credentials.

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