meican_whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it discloses token refresh behavior on HTTP 401 and that the server returns rotated tokens. It implicitly indicates a read operation ("Look up"), but does not explicitly state there are no side effects. The token rotation detail adds useful behavioral context.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds essential information (purpose, follow-up action, parameter notes). No extraneous words.

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 has no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the key outputs (org info, all addresses, `suggested_default_address`) and token refresh behavior. It lacks explicit error handling or full output structure, but the stated information suffices for a lookup tool.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains that `namespace` is only used by this tool, that `access_token` and `refresh_token` fall back to environment variables, and that refresh tokens may be rotated. This extra context helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 states the tool looks up the user's organization info and all delivery addresses, and identifies the `suggested_default_address`. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on user profile and address discovery, which is unique among the siblings like `meican_place_order` or `meican_list_restaurants`.

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 advises calling this tool once per user to obtain the `suggested_default_address` and pass it to `meican_place_order`. This provides clear usage context and a follow-up action, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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