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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only 'Show' action and explains the conceptual purpose of the returned identity, which is beyond what the empty schema provides. It does not explicitly state 'has no side effects,' but the read verb and identity focus make that sufficiently clear.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action, target, and returned fields, then adds the agent-relevant framing. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant or filler text.

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, this description is complete. It names the resource, the exact fields returned, and the operational meaning ('who the agent is acting as'). No output schema exists, but the described return fields are sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The schema fully covers parameter requirements, and the description instead clarifies the meaning of the returned identity, which is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Show'), a specific resource ('authenticated Bilg user'), and the exact fields returned (name, email, id). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the document, task, and handoff siblings, which operate on entirely different resources.

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?

The phrase 'who the agent is acting as' provides clear context for when to call this tool: whenever the agent needs to verify its own identity. There are no sibling tools with similar identity purposes, so explicit alternatives are not necessary, though no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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