who-am-i-to-this-merchant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool performs a read, returns data, or has any side effects. The educational framing leaves ambiguity about what actually happens when invoked.

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 three sentences, reasonably short. However, the first sentence ('Lesson 12 of the curriculum') is meta and could be removed or integrated for better front-loading. Overall efficient but not maximally concise.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must be self-contained. It fails to explain what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a lesson text, checks identity, simulates something). The abstract description is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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?

With no parameters (schema coverage 100%), the description need not add parameter details, but it should clarify the tool's purpose and output. The description adds educational context but does not specify what the tool returns or how it behaves, leaving semantic gaps.

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?

Description frames the tool as a lesson (Lesson 12) with educational content about wallet identity and pseudonymity, but does not specify a concrete action or what the tool does functionally. The name suggests a query about the user's relationship to a merchant, but the description is vague and doesn't clarify the tool's operation.

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 versus sibling tools like decode-merchant or explain-my-wallet. The mention of 'Lesson 12 of the curriculum' implies it's part of a learning sequence but provides no contextual or exclusionary advice.

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