get_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens if the optional account_id is omitted. The name implies a getter, but that is not explicit.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the main purpose without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse, containing no redundant information.

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?

The description provides a use case (draft writing) but omits details about the tool's return value, side effects, parameter behavior, or any caveats. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to use the 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 only parameter, account_id, is not explained in the description. The schema provides no description either, and the description does not clarify its purpose, meaning, or default behavior. This leaves the parameter's semantics completely unspecified.

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 that the tool retrieves the account's identity profile, including 'who I am / what I do / signature style', and frames it as context for writing user-consistent drafts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which appear to provide identity information.

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 hints at usage ('useful for writing drafts consistent with the user') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks clear conditions or examples of when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit.

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