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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: 5-minute caching per tenant credential, the fact that all writes are attributed to this user (e.g. comment.authorUserId), and a prompt-injection warning that profile strings are untrusted ERP content. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause and is well organized, but the multi-line 'Returns' block enumerates dict fields that largely duplicate the available output schema, adding length without much marginal value.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to re-explain returns, yet it covers what the schema cannot: auth semantics, caching, write attribution, and security caveats. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single optional correlation_id parameter is never mentioned in the description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. However, it is one low-stakes optional plumbing parameter, so the omission is minor rather than damaging.

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+resource: returns the weclapp user identity and system (Live/Demo) behind the connection's API key. It self-describes as 'whoami', and the sibling tools (execute_api, tenant_health_check, get_entity) make clear this is a distinct diagnostic read.

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 says when to use it ('check it before the first write') and routes the agent to an alternative for a related need ('For this user's upstream permission strings use tenant_health_check(include_permissions=True)'). This is a clear when-to-use plus named alternative.

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