Who am I

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the exact data returned (name, email, id, roles, timezone) and indicating it can be used to verify connectivity, which enriches behavioral understanding beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function and return fields, the second gives practical use cases. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the necessary context: what data is returned, how it can be used to resolve 'my' entries, and as a connection check. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead, it adds context about the output fields and use cases, which is sufficient.

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's purpose: to get the authenticated Harvest user with a specific list of fields (name, email, id, roles, timezone). The verb 'Get' and resource 'authenticated Harvest user' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_users by focusing on the current user.

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 provides a clear use case: 'resolve my time entries and check the connection.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It offers enough context for an agent to decide to use it for current-user identification.

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