Who am I

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

The description discloses that the tool is side-effect-free and performs a 'read' capability, complementing the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It also reveals the behavioral quirk about draft-only tokens and 403 errors on routes reaching a live audience, which is valuable contextual behavior not evident from annotations alone. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: sentence 1 states the core purpose, sentence 2 gives usage directive and consequence, sentence 3 states capability and side-effect-free nature. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition 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?

Given the zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it returns, when to call it, and why it matters for planning publishing steps. It fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by enumerating the returned components.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema descriptions are 100% covered (empty schema). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools; the description does not and need not add parameter details, though it does enrich understanding of the output.

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 returns the authenticated user, bound organization, org warning, credential capabilities, and canPublish. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, and distinctively positions itself as the identity/capability introspection tool, setting it apart from siblings like get_capabilities and get_engagement_summary.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'CALL THIS FIRST' and explains the practical reason: draft-only tokens get 403ed on publish routes, so checking canPublish before planning publishing steps is essential. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and contextual rationale, going beyond mere implied usage.

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