Who am I

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

With no annotations provided, description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a read-only diagnostic tool that probes only read access, and does not perform writes. It could be slightly enhanced by noting that it doesn't modify state, but the current disclosure is strong.

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 short, focused sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it reveals (misconfigurations). It is complete for a diagnostic probe tool, though it could optionally mention that it does not list all readable entities.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). The description does not need to add parameter info, and the baseline is 4 for zero-param tools. No issues.

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?

Description states it resolves the authenticated bot contact and probes readable entities, with specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like civicrm_system_info or civicrm_get_contact by focusing on authentication and permissions.

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 advises 'Use this first when setting up the server' and lists specific misconfigurations it surfaces (wrong API key, missing permissions). Also notes it does not probe writes, guiding appropriate usage context.

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