Get Paybond Principal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the context that it resolves the tenant-bound principal behind the API key, which clarifies the scope. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., no external calls, no side effects), which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Resolve'. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words. However, the term 'Resolve' may be slightly ambiguous; a clearer verb like 'Retrieve' could improve clarity without increasing length.

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 that the tool has no parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering read-only nature, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core function and the entity involved. Additional details about the principal's role or the return value are not necessary since the output schema provides that information.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to explain parameters. By the baseline rule, a parameterless tool gets a score of 4. The description does not add parameter semantics but also does not need to.

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 the verb 'Resolve' to indicate retrieving the principal identity tied to the API key. It clearly identifies the resource as 'tenant-bound Paybond principal' and distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by focusing on the principal rather than intents or cards. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get operations, which could be improved.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_intent or get_a2a_agent_card. The description lacks context about the tool's role in the workflow, such as being a prerequisite for other operations. There is no mention of exclusions or conditional usage.

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