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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the returned data (authentication vs anonymous demo), which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste. The primary action and use case are front-loaded, and every word adds value. It is compact and easy to parse.

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 simple whoami tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and why to use it. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific info but doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current Create Web Page account context and explicitly mentions its use for checking authentication status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage pages or blocks.

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 provides a clear 'when to use' by stating it checks whether the user is authenticated or using an anonymous expiring demo. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is so specific that no alternatives are needed.

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