get_signer

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

The description discloses that the tool returns metadata, balance, and price, and implies it is a read operation. However, it does not discuss permissions, data freshness guarantees, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. Every element is necessary, and no superfluous information is included.

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 retrieval tool, the description adequately covers the outputs: metadata, balance, and price. It could specify the structure of metadata or the currency of the balance, but it remains reasonably complete given no output schema.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (project_id and signer_id). The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a KMS signer's metadata, native-token balance, and USD-micros price. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_signers (which lists signers) and delete_signer (which deletes).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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