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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safe, side-effect-free nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the returned scopes are specifically those the connected client is authorized for, which is not in the 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?

A single, well-structured sentence delivers the complete purpose with no filler. Key information is front-loaded, and every word contributes value.

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 parameterless, read-only identity/scope lookup with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and leaves the detailed return structure to the output schema.

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 an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description does not need to document parameters and correctly focuses on the output.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Embers user identity and OAuth scopes'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this introspection tool from all sibling tools, none of which overlap with identity/scope retrieval.

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 description clearly implies the use case: checking who the connected client is and which OAuth scopes it has. There are no sibling alternatives for this purpose, and no additional exclusions are needed for such a simple, parameterless introspection tool.

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