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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'not separately rate-limited,' which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond structured fields. It reinforces rather than contradicts annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose, behavioral trait, then alternative and return payload. The most important information (what it does and that it's read-only) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call and understand the response. It lists all returned fields and notes rate limiting, making the tool self-contained.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the result fields, which helps set expectations even though there are no inputs to document.

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 ('Get current user and organization identity') and lists the exact return fields, making it unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming update_me for modifications, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Use update_me to change the returned names,' providing a clear alternative for a related mutation. It does not exhaustively contrast with all siblings, but the identity scope is clear and the read-only guidance implies when not to use it for changes.

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