who-am-i-to-this-merchant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the lesson's content (what the merchant knows, public chain visibility, pseudonymity, hygiene rules) but does not describe how the lesson behaves (e.g., interactive, text-based, any side effects). Since it is a lesson, the behavior is implied but not explicitly 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?

The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the 'Lesson 12' identifier, followed by a clear summary of topics. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or 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?

For a lesson with no output schema or annotations, the description provides a thorough overview of the content and its place in the curriculum. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning delivery format or prerequisites, but the given information is sufficient for an agent to decide if this lesson is relevant.

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 adds contextual meaning about the lesson topic, which is sufficient. No further parameter documentation is needed.

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 identifies the tool as 'Lesson 12' and specifies its scope: merchant knowledge, public chain revelations, wallet identity, pseudonymity, and hygiene rules. This distinguishes it from sibling lessons by topic. However, it lacks a direct verb like 'teaches' or 'explains', making it slightly less action-oriented.

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?

The 'Lesson 12 of the curriculum' context implies a structured sequence, and the topic description suggests when it would be relevant (e.g., learning about wallet privacy). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated, and no exclusions listed.

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