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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a snapshot of conventions, scopes, and domain rules, and it is meant to be called once at conversation start. It doesn't contradict annotations. It could mention caching/staleness, but the 'call once' guidance covers the main behavioral trait.

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 followed by a short usage directive. It front-loads the main purpose and packs the return contents into a list. It is slightly long but every clause adds useful information; no filler. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to call it, and why it matters (resolving relative dates/ownership). The output schema covers the return structure, so the description doesn't need to enumerate fields. Nothing essential 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 is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the returned context contains (user id, workspace, role, date/timezone, tools/scopes, domain rules), which is more than the empty schema provides. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description earns it by clarifying the output's purpose.

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 clear resource: the current user context plus CRM conventions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only one that returns identity, workspace, role, date/timezone, allowed tools/scopes, and domain rules. This is not a tautology and clearly differentiates from get_record, get_activity, etc.

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 explicitly says 'Call it once at the start of a conversation and before resolving any relative date or ownership phrase.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies it should be used before other tools that need context. It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by being the context-initialization tool.

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