seodata_whoami

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the salient behavior: this is a read/inspection call whose payload is credentials, scopes and quota consumption. Side-effect freedom and the fact that reading it does not consume quota are left implicit, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 compact sentences: the return contents first, then the imperative usage directive. No filler, and the most actionable guidance is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return payload — and it does, listing key name, prefix, scopes, quota and daily usage. For a zero-parameter tool this is fully sufficient to call and interpret it.

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 input parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It adds no misleading parameter claims.

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?

Names a specific operation (identity/authorization introspection) and enumerates exactly what it returns: key name, prefix, scopes, daily quota and today's consumption. This is clearly distinct from the data-retrieval siblings (list_storefronts, get_article, run_audit), none of which report credentials or quota.

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 directs 'Use first — authorization check and available permissions', which gives a concrete ordering and intent signal. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an alternative, but for a sole identity tool no alternative exists.

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