Identify anything

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: it probes live sources rather than matching a hardcoded list, returns evidence including sources that found nothing, reports what was not checked and why, and warns against reporting 'does not exist' from empty results. These are valuable traits that go beyond the annotations and are not contradicted by them.

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 front-loaded with the critical 'START HERE' directive, then efficiently covers scope, behavior, and return value. Every sentence adds value—there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool and well structured for quick comprehension.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (evidence, sources checked, confidence rating, what wasn't checked and why). It also covers edge cases like new collections and empty results. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect from the response.

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 schema describes the query parameter as 'An address, marketplace symbol/slug, or collection name,' which is already high coverage. The description enriches this by specifying examples (Solana address, marketplace symbol or slug, plain collection name) and clarifying that it handles strings from any user paste, making the parameter's intent and acceptable inputs even clearer.

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's purpose: to take any string and identify what it is, which marketplaces list it, and which tools to call next. It uses a specific verb ('identify') and resource (any identifier), and explicitly positions itself as the starting point for unknown identifiers, distinguishing it from siblings like search_collections or get_asset.

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?

It opens with 'START HERE when you do not already know what an identifier is,' which is an explicit usage condition. It also mentions that it works on collections that launched today and probes live sources, implying it is the go-to for unknown or unregistered identifiers. It doesn't name specific alternatives, but it says it determines 'which tools to call next,' providing routing guidance.

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