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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one piece of contextual behavior that annotations cannot: the returned link is where the user seals content the agent froze, which reveals the tool's role in the freeze/seal workflow, but it says nothing about auth requirements, freshness of 'this month' figures, or side effects of calling it.

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?

Everything is crammed into a single run-on sentence with an embedded parenthetical, so the most important instruction (call this to learn the acting identity) is not front-loaded. The content is largely substantive, but the structure forces the agent to parse three unrelated payloads out of one breath.

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?

With zero parameters, a full annotation set, and an output schema handling the return shape, the description only needs to say what class of data comes back — which it does (identity, plan, seals, seal link). The one residual gap is the dangling reference to an `about` tool/prompt that the agent has no way to locate.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies; the description gains no extra credit here but loses none.

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 enumerates concrete outputs (identity of the acting account, plan, seals this month, a seal link) but the leading clause reframes the tool as an explainer of what STEMPA is, which sits oddly with the name 'Who am I' and with the sibling stempa_profile. An agent can guess the tool's job, but the bundling of product explainer + identity + usage stats makes the primary purpose ambiguous.

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?

One actionable condition is given ('read `about` first... when the person asks what STEMPA is'), but `about` does not appear in the sibling tool list, so the referenced counterpart is unresolvable from what the agent can see. There is no guidance on when to choose stempa_whoami over stempa_profile or stempa_briefs, which are the real next-best alternatives.

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