get_self

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the result reflects the authenticated principal rather than an arbitrary user, but says nothing about auth failure behavior or whether the response distinguishes user from bot.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier ('current authenticated') front-loaded before the payload noun. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

For a zero-argument read tool with an output schema and annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it. Only minor value is missing, such as noting the user-vs-bot shape distinction, which the output schema likely covers anyway.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('the current authenticated Notion user or bot info'), which makes the return subject unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from directory-style siblings like list_users by the word 'current', though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the identity-check call, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over list_users or when it might fail (e.g., unauthenticated context). No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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