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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating the action is performed 'without changing state.' It adds context about the returned identity (principal and linked owner) and gives a caution about sharing the id, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences and every phrase earns its place: the first defines the operation and state-safety, the second provides actionable usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple no-parameter identity tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description fully covers purpose, side-effect profile, and appropriate usage. The reference to request_review's assigneeId connects the tool to a real workflow, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so parameter-specific documentation is unnecessary. The description adds semantic context by explaining what the tool returns and why the id might be shared, satisfying the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as the authenticated MarkupBase principal plus any linked owner identity. It clearly distinguishes this from mutation tools by stating it does not change state, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: share the returned id only when another agent needs an assigneeId for request_review. This establishes both a use case and a privacy boundary, effectively telling agents when this tool's output is appropriate.

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