whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what the tool reveals (account and role) and its role as a credential/auth verification step, which is genuine added context; only return-format details are absent, and an output schema exists anyway.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the diagnostic purpose front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only probe with full annotation coverage and an existing output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns conceptually, and that it should be called first.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level guidance is needed or missing.

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: verify the Zendesk connection and report the account and role the server runs as. That is clear and unambiguous, and no sibling tool does anything comparable. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate itself, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

"Use this first to confirm the credentials work" gives an explicit, actionable trigger: run it as the initial diagnostic before other calls. It does not describe when not to use it or name an alternative, but for a unique diagnostic tool no meaningful alternative exists.

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