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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: the call is scoped to the authenticated principal, and the payload never includes a secret key — a security-relevant disclosure an agent would otherwise have to assume. It does not describe failure/auth-error behavior, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the routing constraint and the security caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it correctly limits itself to the account scope plus the secret-key exclusion. Annotations cover the safety profile and there are no parameters to document. The only missing piece is any mention of authentication failure behavior or whether the call can error when no session exists.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead clarifies the returned data, which is the right allocation of attention.

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 and resource: 'Read the authenticated user and organisation.' That is unambiguous about what the tool returns, and it implicitly distinguishes itself from the many resource-specific get_* siblings by scope (account-level, not artifact/job/design). It stops short of naming a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use ('only when requested') and two explicit when-not-to-use cases ('Not a design prerequisite or connection preflight'), which is unusually strong routing guidance for a getter. The only gap is that it does not name an alternative tool to use for those preflight cases, so it is not a full 5.

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