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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates the risk classes returned (read, low impact, external communication, consequential-with-approval) and states this call's own scope (profile:read) and effects (none). It stops short of saying what happens if a scope is not granted or how the response is shaped.

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?

One front-loaded sentence conveys the core contract, followed by a compact metadata footer (scope, risk, effects) that is genuinely informative rather than filler. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing the return content, and it does so at a conceptual level: per-scope granted-by-user, usable-by-role and risk class. A brief note on whether the result covers only the current session/identity, or the granularity of a 'scope' entry, would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument, introspection-style call.

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 specific verb and resource: explains, scope by scope, what the current authorization can do, including grant source, operator-role usability and risk class. Clear and concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbours like get_capabilities or get_identity, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 can infer it should call this when it needs to know what actions are currently permitted before attempting something risky. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (notably get_capabilities), so overlap with sibling introspection tools is unresolved.

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