get_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that this is a retrieval of identity; it says nothing about authentication/consent requirements (KYC/PII sensitivity), rate limits, caching behavior, or what happens when a provider connection is stale.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded. It is tight and readable, though arguably under-specified rather than purely 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?

For a simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is still too thin: the two parameters that govern its behavior (fresh, provider_id) are undocumented and no return shape or sensitivity constraints are given.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description explains neither. 'fresh' is particularly cryptic — it presumably controls cache bypass or a forced re-fetch from the bank, but the agent is left to guess. 'provider_id' is also unexplained and its null default is ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (account holder's identity), and the qualifier 'as the bank holds it' signals this is the authoritative bank-side record rather than any cached or derived view. An agent can distinguish it from get_balance, get_transactions, and the list_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus sync_now, cache_status, or the other get_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites. The 'fresh' parameter strongly implies a caching decision that the description never addresses.

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