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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial context on top: it enumerates what it does NOT do (create, invite, sign, charge, file), declares idempotency ('safe to repeat'), canonicality (reads current server state, does not manufacture facts), and a confirmation boundary for the read.

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 opening sentence is correctly front-loaded, and the conditional routing rules are actionable. But the description is very long and contains generic boilerplate (canonicality, idempotency, confirmation-boundary text) that reads as copy-pasted policy rather than tool-specific information, diluting the signal.

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 complex, multi-purpose entry-point tool with no output schema and only safety annotations, the description covers prerequisites, return contents (email, connected company, all companies, ownProfile), and follow-up routing well. The only real gap is the undocumented _corply_context parameter.

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?

There is one parameter, _corply_context (a nested context object), with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions or explains it. The description details return values instead, which is output rather than parameter semantics. Adequate only because the lone parameter is infrastructure plumbing.

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 and resource: it verifies/checks the connected Corply account before incorporation intake and returns the authenticated email and company data. It distinguishes itself from mutation siblings (create_company, invite_cofounders, sign, charge, file) by explicitly disclaiming those. However, the name 'whoami' vs. the title's 'start incorporation' framing is mildly confusing, and the core purpose is buried under routing prose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Start here when the user wants to open, start, register or incorporate a company... and this connection has not been verified') and when else ('also use after login or account switching'). It names the correct hand-offs for specific return states: redeem_invite on pendingInvites, review_invited_identity then approve_invited_identity on pendingIdentityReviews.

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