support_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently states it returns identity and metadata without side effects. It could mention authentication requirements or error scenarios, but the core behavior is clear and consistent with a read-only info tool.

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?

Two sentences: first lists return contents, second gives usage guidance. No filler, efficient structure.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return data and provides practical context for use. Covers identity fields and account metadata categories. Sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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?

No parameters exist. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns and why it's useful. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it returns the authenticated agent's identity and account-level support metadata, specifying exact fields (id, name, email, role, subdomain, account settings, brands, ticket forms). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ticket or create_ticket by focusing on session/infrastructure info.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to confirm which Zendesk instance the session is connected to and which ticket forms / brands are available before constructing tickets.' This provides clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given its unique role, it's still strong.

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