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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context about what the response contains (name, email, profile, feature flags) and the token's permission scope. However, it does not describe output format, potential missing fields, or any authentication nuances beyond what the annotations already imply, so it adds value but remains basic.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the key output fields ('nome, e-mail, perfil, feature flags') and followed by a clear use case. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a low-complexity, parameterless, read-only tool with strong annotations. The description fully covers what data is returned and why an agent would invoke it: to confirm identity and permission scope. No output schema exists, but the listed fields are sufficient for the tool's simple purpose.

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, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4 because the description need not compensate for missing parameter details. The description focuses on return data, which is appropriate for a parameterless introspection endpoint.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it returns data about the token owner's user (name, email, profile, feature flags). While it lacks a direct verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves,' the noun phrase 'Dados do usuário dono do token' makes the resource unambiguous. It also differentiates itself by adding the use case of confirming whose behalf actions are recorded, which separates it from sibling auth tools like authenticate and connect.

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 use it: 'Use para confirmar em nome de quem as ações serão registradas e qual o escopo de permissão da chave.' This gives clear context for invocation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases. Given the tool's simple self-inspection role, this is adequate and actionable.

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