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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral credite by noting it returns identity/permission context and, notably, 'It never returns credentials,' which is important safety context for an agent.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the return content first. Every clause adds value: what is returned, when to call it, why it matters, and the important credentials caveat. There is no repetition of annotation data.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description states the meaningful groups of returned information: organization, identity, permissions, and deployment runtimes. It might have provided slightly more detail about output shape or field names, but for a simple read-only introspection tool the description gives an agent sufficient context for correct use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'context' parameter; the schema explains its exact purpose and length and viewpoint constraints. The description adds no parameter detail, but that is acceptable because the schema already carries the full parameter documentation.

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 names a specific operation and resource: it 'Returns the organization, identity, and permissions this agent token acts as, together with the deployment runtimes configured for it.' This is clearly separating context retrieval from app, deployment, and approval tools, although it does not explicitly name which sibling it is being contrasted with.

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?

It provides strong sequencing guidance with 'Call this first' and explains the situational value: 'it tells you which tenant you are in, what you are allowed to do, and whether a deployment can actually land.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as springroll.policy.check, but the intended context is clear.

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