notary__describe_agent

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

No annotations provided; description only states it 'returns' information, implying a safe read operation. However, no details on side effects, permissions, or limitations are disclosed.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with domain prefix. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a basic idea of returned data (capabilities and input contract) but lacks detail on structure or format, which is minimally adequate.

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?

No parameters in input schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but for zero-parameter tools, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool returns capabilities and input contract, with a domain prefix clarifying the notary context. It distinguishes from sister describe_agent tools by domain, but the vague terms 'capabilities' and 'input contract' lack specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling 'describe_agent' tools across domains, explicit context for selection is missing.

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