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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'listing accessible boards' as a side effect, but fails to specify read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects. The description only partially covers behavioral traits.

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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., board names, IDs) beyond 'accessible boards'. With an output schema, further explanation is not required, but adding context about the return value would improve completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter information. Following the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not contradict the schema.

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 tool name 'whoami' is self-descriptive, and the description clearly states the action ('Confirm the caller's API key') and the method ('by listing accessible boards'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'ping' or 'list_boards'.

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 implies use for identity verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ping' for connectivity). No exclusions or context are provided.

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