get_identity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific identity by ID') and adds useful detail ('including attributes, accounts, and access'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured, earning a score of 5.

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 tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication needs. This makes it complete enough for basic use but with clear gaps, resulting in a score of 3.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'The identity ID.' The description adds value by clarifying that this ID retrieves 'detailed information... including attributes, accounts, and access,' which provides context beyond the schema. However, since the schema already covers the parameter adequately, the baseline is 3, and the description's additional context maintains this score.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific identity by ID, including attributes, accounts, and access.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('identity'), and scope ('by ID'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_identity_profile' or 'list_identities', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'list_identities' for listing multiple identities or 'get_identity_profile' for profile-specific details, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage. This lack of contextual direction results in a score of 2.

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