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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value beyond the annotation by listing exactly which pieces of information are returned (tenant ID, user ID, role), giving the agent a clear expectation of the output. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that immediately states the tool's verb, resource, and content. Every word earns its place; there is zero fluff.

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, read-only informational tool, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool does and what it returns. With no output schema, naming the fields satisfies the agent's needs for invoking and interpreting the result.

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 schema imposes no burden. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter information because none exists. No gap to compensate.

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 ('Show') and a specific resource ('current authentication info') with concrete fields (tenant ID, user ID, role). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that handle deployments, facts, groups, etc.

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?

While there is no explicit 'when to use' or alternative guidance, the tool's purpose is self-evident: it is the only tool that displays authentication context. The simplicity and lack of similar siblings make usage implicit, though a brief note on typical use (e.g., before authenticated calls) would have been ideal.

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