Connected Identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds useful context about returning the identity plus product list, and the primary product selection behavior, which goes beyond the structured 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, each earning its place: purpose, return content, and usage guidance. No fluff, information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

The description is complete for a simple zero-parameter tool. It explains the output (identity and products with fields) and provides usage context. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers return values and typical usage, with minor gaps around edge cases (e.g., no org).

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no parameter semantics, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful guidance about the product_id concept (though not a parameter of this tool) and how to use it in other tools, which enriches parameter understanding across the toolset.

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 clearly states the tool shows the connected AIOProductOS identity (org, member) and the org's products with specific attributes (id, name, is_primary). This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools by focusing specifically on identity and product scope.

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?

Description explicitly instructs when to use: 'For a multi-product org, call this first to get the product ids, then pass one as product_id to any product-scoped tool; omit product_id to use the primary.' This gives clear context and practical alternatives for using the tool's output across other tools.

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