agent_get_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares the data is public relay data requiring no content decryption, and warns that returned content is untrusted and must not be treated as instructions. That is real behavioral and safety context beyond the schema. It stops short of covering failure modes (unknown DID) or any rate/auth limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the data-provenance note, then the security warning. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the safety/provenance context is present. Only minor gaps remain (behavior on unknown DID, freshness/caching of relay data) for what is otherwise a simple read tool.

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 100% for the single 'did' parameter and the description adds only the phrase 'by DID', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (look up) and resource (public profile and public keys) plus the lookup key (DID), which distinguishes it from agent_resolve_username and agent_get_trust. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling agent_get_profile, but the 'by DID' scoping is clear.

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 never says when to use this instead of agent_get_profile, agent_get_trust, or agent_key_verify, all of which overlap. The only usage signal is implicit in 'by DID', which is a lookup key rather than guidance.

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