Get current user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by naming the returned payload (name, email, time zone), which matters because no output schema exists; it stops short of noting auth-token requirements or the 'etc' fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It says what it fetches and what comes back, then stops.

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-param, read-only identity lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and set expectations about the response. The trailing 'etc' leaves the full field set slightly under-specified, but nothing essential 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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and instead spends its words on the response shape, which is the only open question the schema cannot answer.

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 ('Get the authenticated SavvyCal user') and even enumerates the returned fields. No sibling tool retrieves the current user, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from list_events, get_event, and the rest.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the phrase 'authenticated user' — an agent knows this is for resolving the caller's own identity — but the description names no alternatives or conditions and never says when this is preferable to, say, get_event for identity context.

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