notary_pubkey

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: the key format, offline verification capability, and that it's free. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, enhancing the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

A single sentence that packs all essential information: free, key type, encoding, raw length, use case, and no wallet requirement. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important fact (FREE) followed by the resource.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description fully addresses what the agent needs: the return value's format and the offline verification context. The annotations cover safety, so nothing critical 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). No additional parameter info required.

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 returns the notary's Ed25519 public key in a specific format (base64, raw 32 bytes) for offline signature verification. It distinguishes itself from siblings like notarize_inference and verify_attestation by focusing on key retrieval rather than notarization or attestation operations.

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 mentions 'for fully offline signature verification' and 'No wallet needed', giving a clear use case. While it doesn't name alternative tools or say when not to use them, the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when this key-fetching tool is appropriate.

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