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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context those annotations cannot express: the call requires either an OAuth connection or a bearer token, which tells the agent about failure modes. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but neither is relevant for a single-identity lookup.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with what the caller receives, then the auth requirement. The first sentence is a bare noun list with no verb, which reads slightly telegraphic, but nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list the key fields (muse_id, profile, verification, next steps). Auth requirements are also covered. Only the empty/error case and the exact shape of 'profile' or 'next steps' remain unspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single token parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the exact condition for omitting it ('leave it out when this client is connected by OAuth'). The description merely restates 'your token' versus an OAuth connection, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource — the caller's own identity — and enumerates what comes back (muse_id, profile, verification status, next steps). The possessive 'Your' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_profile, but that distinction is never stated explicitly, so an agent must infer whether get_profile also returns its own record.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Needs a connection (OAuth) or your token') but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_profile, get_feed, or the other identity-adjacent siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the returned fields.

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