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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that it takes no arguments and that its output keys feed other tools, which is actionable context. It does not mention failure modes (e.g., unauthenticated calls) or any output shape beyond the two fields it names, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contract, then the usage instruction, then the permission-map rationale — logical ordering with no filler sentences. The enumeration of twelve permission strings is long, though it does justify why the map is worth inspecting, so it is defensible rather than pure bloat.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so precisely by naming organizations[].organization_id, role, and the permissions map with its key set. An agent has everything needed to call this and consume the result.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so baseline is 4; the description reinforces 'it takes no arguments,' which is redundant with the empty schema but harmless. The real semantic content is about output paths, not parameters.

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 and resource ('Returns the calling Meridian user's identity plus every organisation they belong to') and enumerates the nested content (role and permissions per org). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like apps_list, which the description itself references as a consumer of this tool's output.

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?

Explicit routing instruction: 'Call this first to orient yourself,' plus the concrete downstream contract that organizations[].organization_id is what other tools expect as organization_id. It also explains how to use the permissions map to pre-check whether another tool will be allowed, which is genuine when-to-use guidance.

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