Who am I

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about what the tool reveals (including server configuration like workspace lock and read-only settings), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. No side effects or additional caveats are needed for a read-only diagnostic.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a clear directive. It front-loads the key concept ('The account behind the API key') and avoids any wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return fields (name, email, active workspace, time zone, server configuration) and explains the diagnostic purpose. It is sufficiently complete for a simple whoami tool, and the usage guidance ties it together.

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 takes no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the description focuses on the return content, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool. The baseline of 4 applies here.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it returns the account behind the API key along with key details like name, email, active workspace, time zone, and server configuration. It uses a specific verb+resource structure ('The account behind the API key') and is distinct from sibling tools like clockify_list_workspaces or clockify_get_workspace.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Start here when anything looks wrong.' This provides a clear diagnostic entry point, though it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives. The guidance is useful and context-specific.

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