beel_get_my_identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds substantial context beyond that: no scope required, never cached (Cache-Control: no-store), `name` resolution via `trade_name ?? legal_name` with null until onboarding, and the purpose of the `credential` object for adaptive clients. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: it leads with the main purpose, then adds behavioral details and a closing note on the credential object. It is a bit verbose, but every sentence contributes unique information. The endpoint at the end is a helpful reference. Slightly longer than necessary, but efficient.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, how to interpret success/failure, caching behavior, and field resolution rules. It leaves no ambiguity about when or how to call it, and the lack of an output schema is compensated by a thorough explanation of the response.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, but it explains the meaning of response fields, which is indirectly useful for understanding the input-less invocation. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the identity of the authenticated principal'), enumerating the fields (email, name, logo, language, credential). It distinguishes itself from every other operation by requiring no scope, making its unique purpose unmistakable. The endpoint is even given as a concrete reference.

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 contrasts this with all other operations ('Unlike every other operation') and clarifies when to use it: to confirm a credential works (200) vs not (401) and to learn which account a credential belongs to. It also explains how `BeeL-Active-Company` does not affect `account_id`, giving clear boundary conditions.

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