whoami

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds critical behavioral context: no Clover data returned, no secrets, and only the names of token claims (never values). This goes beyond the annotation's safety hint and clarifies exactly what the tool does and does not expose.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a clear diagnostic question, then precise details on returns and use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 tool has no inputs, no parameters to document, and an output schema exists, the description still provides purpose, behavioral scope, and a concrete usage scenario. It fully covers what an agent needs to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for zero params is 4; the description adds value by explaining the tool's return information, which indirectly clarifies why no parameters are needed.

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's purpose as a diagnostic for identifying the authenticated identity and Clover tenant mapping. It specifies exactly what it returns (identity, token claim names, scopes, tenant provisioned) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are business operations like list_orders or create_customer.

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 when setting up multi-tenant' and gives a concrete use case: discovering which identity claim the platform provides to key CLOVER_TENANTS_JSON correctly. This provides clear when-to-use guidance without needing alternatives.

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