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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it discloses the endpoint (GET /c/{company_id}/admin) and flags the call as 'cheap', which is a genuine cost/behavioral signal. It stops short of detailing error behavior for invalid tokens.

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, front-loaded with what is fetched and followed by why to use it. The endpoint reference is a compact, useful appendix with no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (name, email, role, role abilities, company id) is exactly the missing information an agent needs. Combined with the annotations, nothing required to call this zero-parameter tool correctly is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed, and it usefully notes the company_id is implied by the token rather than passed.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and a precisely scoped resource (the user the API token belongs to), then enumerates the returned fields (name, email, role, role abilities, company id). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case — 'a cheap way to confirm the token and company id are right' — which tells the agent when to reach for it over other lookups. It does not name an alternative or exclusion, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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