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

Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description adds the payload semantics of permissions (access, blocked, is_owner) but says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior when unauthorized, or rate limits. Useful but not rich behavioral context.

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 sentences, well front-loaded with the core return content before the operational advice. Slightly dense with parenthetical field enumerations, but every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned identity fields and the nested workspaces[] rights structure, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-parameter, low-complexity identity tool this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading param claims are made.

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 and resource ("Возвращает информацию о текущем авторизованном пользователе") and enumerates the returned fields plus the per-workspace rights array. No sibling tool returns the current user identity, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable despite the shared "get_*" prefix.

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?

"Читайте до действий: по access видно, что разрешено, без пробных вызовов" gives clear when-to-use guidance and a rationale (avoid trial calls), which is valuable in a large sibling set. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it does not reach 5.

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