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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the content of the response (identity, org, granted permissions), which matters because there is no output schema to read.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, then spends its remaining words on the three return components. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description must characterize the return value, and it does so concretely. Minor gap: it does not say what happens when the caller has no valid session or how the permission list is expressed, which would help an agent parse 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The empty input schema is fully consistent with a self-inspection call.

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?

Specific verb ('Show') plus a precisely scoped resource ('who you are signed in as'), and it enumerates the three things returned: person, organisation, permitted actions. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `agentx_identity`, which an agent could plausibly read as overlapping.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the call to make when it needs to know its own authorization context before attempting something privileged. No explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative or fallback if the identity cannot be resolved.

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