get_global_identity

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of authentication, data sensitivity, or any side effects. This is minimal but not misleading, so it earns an average score.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with 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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It names the key data returned (identity, SID, investor profile), but could provide slightly more detail on what 'SID' stands for or what 'investor profile details' includes. Still, for a simple getter, it suffices.

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, earning a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: KSEI account holder identity, SID, and investor profile details. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on balances and portfolio summaries.

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 context is clear: this tool retrieves identity/profile data, which is distinct from the balance and portfolio tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it lacks the explicit guidance of a score 5.

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