whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-only resolution operation and surfaces the key behavioral trait — token labels may not match the resolved account. It omits the output format, but for a simple identity check that is a minor gap.

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 with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage directive follows in the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

Complete for a simple identity tool with two optional params and no output schema: the description covers purpose, sequencing, and the one critical caveat. The exact return shape would be a nice addition but is not essential for a whoami-style call.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it never explains what account_id and token_name do or how passing them alters resolution. The two optional nullable parameters are left to inference, though the description's mention of 'token' and 'account' loosely maps to them.

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 states a specific verb ('show') and a precise resource ('which CTM account the server will act on, and where the token came from'). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings that buy, search, configure, and release numbers — this is the identity-resolution tool in a purchase workflow.

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 instructs the agent to 'call this first' and to relay the resolved account name before buying anything, with the underlying reason stated (a token can map to a different account than its label suggests). This is direct, actionable routing guidance relative to buy_numbers and the rest of the workflow.

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