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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context beyond that: it specifies the exact data returned (user, workspace, role, teams) and the authorization basis (OAuth grant). This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect without contradicting 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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides a pragmatic usage instruction. No filler words, no redundancy, and the most critical information (what it returns) is front-loaded.

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 introspection tool with rich safe-operation annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what data is returned and when to call it first. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 the baseline per rubric is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is fine because there are none to document. The schema fully covers the empty parameter set.

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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resource: 'Orbit user, workspace, role and teams authorized by the OAuth grant.' It also indicates the primary purpose ('Call this first to learn which teams you may write to'), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools that operate on other resources.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this first to learn which teams you may write to,' which is a clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives, but given the tool is uniquely for identity retrieval, alternatives are not applicable. The guidance is explicit enough.

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