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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, so no mutation is implied. The description adds crucial operational context beyond the annotations: the connection lacks sign-in, the signed-in behavior, and the failure behavior that returns what is wrong and how to fix it. This fully prepares the agent for the likely error path.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the critical authentication constraint, then states the signed-in behavior and the call-anyway directive in an efficient, readable way.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, success behavior, failure behavior, and remediation. An agent has everything needed to decide to invoke it and to interpret the likely response.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema leaves little to clarify. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a clear function: when signed in, it returns who you are and which locations you may look at. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_locations by focusing on the current user's access, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

It gives clear context about the missing sign-in and explicitly instructs to call the tool anyway when the user asks for this information, because the error-and-fix response is what the user needs. It does not discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient.

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