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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: that the response encodes this app's read/change permissions and lead visibility scope, which explains why a tool might be unavailable. It does not address failure behavior or what an unauthenticated call returns.

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, both front-loaded: the identity contents come first, the call-first-and-why guidance second. The compact clause list in sentence one packs six distinct facets without filler, and nothing repeats the annotations.

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 no parameters, the description correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the identity fields. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases — what the tool reports when the connection is unauthenticated or under-scoped — which matters for a diagnostic tool but is not stated.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description instead spends its words on what the call yields, which is the correct allocation for a no-argument 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 names the exact resource this tool resolves — the caller's identity — and enumerates the specific facets returned: person, role, workspace, app permissions, time zone, and lead visibility. No sibling tool in the list returns identity or permission context, so an agent can distinguish this from the get_/list_/search_ family without opening any schema.

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 gives two concrete invocation triggers: when the meaning of 'my leads' needs resolving, and when diagnosing why a tool is missing (implying a permissions-based absence). What's absent is any when-not guidance or named alternative for permission-related questions, so it stops short of a full routing instruction.

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