Get User Identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content detail (email, name, accounts with slugs and permissions), but does not disclose anything like authentication failure behavior or whether accounts may be empty. This is a modest value-add beyond 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the key return fields. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only identity tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned and includes the important account/permission details. No essential information for calling the tool 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no parameters are needed by framing the operation as identity retrieval, which is consistent with an empty schema.

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 action ('Get') and a clearly defined resource: the current authenticated user's identity plus associated Fizzy accounts. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing 'current authenticated user' and the account list with slugs and permissions, which separates it from get_accounts/get_users.

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?

The description makes it clear this tool is for retrieving the authenticated user's own identity, which gives the agent an obvious usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter identity tool the framing is sufficient.

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