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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: it explicitly notes the unauthenticated case ('returns authenticated:false when no valid credential is configured') and lists the specific identity and scope information returned. This adds value, though it does not cover auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then usage. The first sentence is dense with an enumeration of return fields, which is informative but slightly heavy; overall it avoids filler and every sentence earns its place, though it could be tightened.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is complete: it states the purpose, when to call it, the safety profile, and the unauthenticated edge case. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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. Per the scoring rule, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('authenticated contributor identity'), and enumerates the exact information returned (operator boundary, scopes, credential expiry, write_epoch, publish/review behavior). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools (fetch, get_changes, search), so it falls short of the top score.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Call once before the first contribution in a session.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it offers no exclusions (when not to use) or alternative tools, which would be needed for a 5.

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