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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that by specifying what the endpoint returns (tenantId, apiKeyId, scopes) and why the scope info matters. Since there is no output schema, this return-value disclosure is especially valuable.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the purpose and result fields, the second gives the operational trigger. Every phrase earns its place, and the most actionable guidance comes immediately after the core purpose.

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 identity-check tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to call it. Annotations cover the safety profile, and no output schema is needed because the description names the key return fields.

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 is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs; no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('the API key this connection uses'), and names the returned fields (tenantId, apiKeyId, scopes). It is immediately distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on templates, webhooks, notifications, and stats.

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 states when to call the tool: before attempting write tools, because they need the `write` scope. This gives an agent a clear decision rule despite the tool having no obvious siblings performing a similar function.

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