Get current user

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this operation is safe and read-only. The description adds the endpoint and the fact it returns the 'user profile', which is mild additional context. It doesn't disclose things like error behavior, response shape, or authentication state specifics, but given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some value beyond annotations.

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, direct sentence that conveys the action, resource, and endpoint without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the technical detail in parentheses, which is efficient and immediately scannable.

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 the tool is a simple read-only GET with no parameters and an output schema exists (even though not included), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. There are no hidden requirements, side effects, or ambiguities. The description is complete for this context.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description is not required to add any parameter semantics. Following the baseline guidance for 0 params, a 4 is appropriate because there is nothing lacking; the description correctly focuses on the operation.

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 ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('the current Benepass user profile'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also includes the endpoint (GET /v2/me/) for technical precision. This differentiates it from siblings like list_workspaces or list_accounts, which target other resources.

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 purpose is self-evident: to retrieve the current user's profile, which is a foundational call. While no explicit 'use this when' guidance or alternatives are mentioned, the tool's role is obvious from its name and description. Siblings like start_login or complete_login are clearly different steps in the auth flow, so the context is implied if not explicitly stated.

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