get_current_user

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it discloses the required auth context, the inability to authenticate via API key alone, and the login flow ordering. It does not describe pagination or the response shape, but for a no-argument self-read tool that gap is minor.

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?

Purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is the right ordering. The ACCESS block, however, restates the start_login/wait_for_login sequence already given above, adding length without new information.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns at a high level, the mandatory login prerequisite, and the authenticated-vs-API-key access distinction. No material gap remains.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and adds no contradictory parameter guidance.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get the signed-in user's account details, plan and settings") with the subject-scope (signed-in user, not the API key's account) made explicit. It names the siblings that cover adjacent cases (get_self_api_key, get_settings), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (a login session is required) and when-not-to-use ("An API key alone cannot read this"), with named alternatives for the excluded case. The prerequisite call sequence (start_login then wait_for_login) is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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