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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation (returns information) and lists the exact data points returned, including user id, display name, and organization details. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but for a pure identity lookup this is adequate.

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 and then explains the usability of the user id. It is concise and well-structured, covering all essential aspects without unnecessary fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description is the sole source of return information. It enumerates the key fields (user id, display name, organization id/name/personal flag) and even provides a practical use case, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 ('who you are'), detailing exactly what is returned: user id, display name, and organization details. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on issues, comments, attachments, etc., so there is no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 gives a concrete usage hint by noting the user id is usable as list_issues' assigneeId to find your own issues, which implies when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, there are no alternatives for identity retrieval, so the context is sufficient.

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