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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns authenticated user scope, partner context, and user list for partners, which is useful context about the data returned, but it does not elaborate on authentication requirements, response format, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states what the tool returns. There is no unnecessary text, and the key information is presented immediately.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete for an agent to understand what data it returns. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the structure of the returned data, but for a simple read-only tool, this is acceptable.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for no parameters is 4, as the schema is trivially complete and the description need not compensate.

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 ('Return') and three specific resources ('authenticated user scope', 'partner context', 'user list for partners'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like FindUser or ListBrands, but the focus on the authenticated user's own info is distinct enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It merely describes the return content without indicating the appropriate context for invocation.

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