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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the result is derived from the connection's credentials rather than from input — but says nothing about the shape of the returned workspace information or error behavior when the connection is unauthenticated.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the returned entity. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only, closed-world call with full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough for correct invocation. The only mild gap is that no output schema exists and the return shape (workspace id, name, plan?) is not sketched.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to document, and the description correctly implies no input is required because the answer comes from the connection itself.

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?

States a concrete verb ("Show") and a concrete resource ("the VivaDialog workspace this connection belongs to"), which resolves the ambiguity of the name 'whoami' (user identity vs. workspace). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_members or get_plan, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the orientation/discovery call to determine which workspace the credentials belong to. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many list_*/get_* siblings.

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