Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: no plaintext is returned because the server holds none, and it clarifies that the identity is derived locally while counts/tier/bfsi come from the server. This helps an agent predict response behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The primary action and result are front-loaded, and the follow-up sentences add only essential behavioral and usage context.

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 status tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is shown, what is safe, and why no plaintext appears. Nothing meaningful 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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers them (100% coverage). The description needs to do no parameter work, making the baseline 4 appropriate.

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 verb ('Show') and a well-defined resource ('current SAIHM session'), then enumerates the exact contents: agent identity, tier, custody mode, shard and sharing counts, and bfsi score. This clearly distinguishes it from the mutation-focused sibling tools (join, share, forget, recall, vote).

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 explicitly says 'Use it to check which identity is active and what is stored and shared,' which gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among siblings that all perform actions, the read-only status role is unambiguous.

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