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

The annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful prerequisite beyond the annotations: it 'Needs an agent key (read or write),' which tells the agent about authentication requirements; it stops short of describing failure behavior without a key.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned information and followed by the operational instruction. Every sentence carries useful signal with no filler.

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, read-only identity tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the prerequisite key, and when to call it. It could be slightly stronger by stating what happens when no valid key is present, but it is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by focusing entirely on the returned identity context.

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 names the exact identity facts returned (company, scope, role, MCP address) for the calling agent key, which is far more specific than the title alone. An agent can immediately tell this is an identity/introspection call rather than a data read like semanto_company_get or semanto_keys_get.

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 an explicit ordering instruction: 'Call it first,' which is actionable guidance for an agent establishing context. It does not name alternatives or say when not to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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