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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior: it is read-only, and returns authenticated:false when no valid credential is configured. This discloses an edge-case behavior not present in annotations, exceeding the baseline expectation without contradicting any annotation.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core identity information, followed by usage guidance and a read-only note. It avoids fluff, though the long enumeration of displayed items makes it slightly less scannable than a bulleted list. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, read-only behavior, and the no-credential fallback. The output schema handles return structure, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call 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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). It appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 ('Show') and enumerates the exact resources displayed: identity, operator boundary, scopes, credential expiry, write_epoch, and publication capability. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch, get_changes, and search, which focus on data retrieval rather than contributor context.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call once before the first contribution in a session', providing a clear temporal usage rule. While it does not name alternatives, the tool's purpose is unique among siblings, so no exclusion is needed; the guidance is actionable and sufficient.

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