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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists the exact content of the response (role, timezone, permitted tools/scopes, domain rules) and instructs a one-time call pattern, which helps the agent understand side-effect-free initialization behavior.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before enumerating contents and usage. It is slightly long but every clause adds meaningful detail about what the agent gets and when to call it.

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 tool with a rich output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, why it matters, and the recommended call timing. No critical information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema carries no burden. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description need not elaborate on inputs, and it correctly focuses on return-value semantics instead.

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 ('Returns') and a precise resource: the acting user identity plus CRM conventions. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_record or search_candidates by focusing on identity, workspace, and domain rules rather than business-object data.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Call it once at the start of a conversation and before resolving any relative date or ownership phrase.' This gives the agent an unambiguous trigger condition, and no alternative is needed since siblings cover different purposes.

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