retrieve_current_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does supply a useful behavioral fact: "Read-only." It also clarifies the identity context (API user tied to Ingestion API credentials). However it omits any error/permission behavior for invalid credentials or what fields the user record contains, leaving the disclosure thin.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and a read-only marker. The second sentence partially restates the first (partner user vs API user associated with credentials), but it adds the credential-scoping detail rather than pure redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no description, and there are no parameters to explain. For a zero-arg read tool the description covers purpose, scope, and safety adequately; only richer behavioral detail (auth failure, field list) is missing.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Get the current integration partner user") and scopes it to the caller's own credentials, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_user that fetches an arbitrary user. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the 'current/API user' framing is clear enough to route correctly.

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?

Usage is implied by "the API user associated with the Ingestion API credentials" - an agent infers this is for identifying the authenticated caller. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternative get_user for other users.

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