identity_get_access_token_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the access policy shows Anonymous has access, and it documents behavioral divergences from the CSP API ('email_verified' not returned, 'sub' contains only the user ID without a ':' separator). It doesn't cover rate limits or caching, but for a read-only GET the disclosure is solid.

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 deprecation warning and alternative are correctly front-loaded, but the body mixes markdown headings, a role/access table rendered with escaped HTML entities, and a divergent-fields paragraph, plus a trailing raw route. Useful content, but the structure is noisy and the access table is marginal for an agent selecting a tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so: 'all user related fields (also part of the associated user ID token)' plus group ids and names. Combined with the deprecation status and access policy, an agent has enough to decide and call correctly.

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 to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the response shape, which is the relevant semantics for a no-argument call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Display detailed user information compiled from the user access token and the associated ID token,' and spells out which fields are included (user fields, group ids and names). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings such as identity_get_logged_in_user or identity_get_logged_in_user_details, which leaves some ambiguity.

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?

Opens with an explicit '[DEPRECATED]' marker and a 'Use this API instead: /scim/v2/Users' directive, which is a clear when-not-to-use signal. However, the recommended alternative is an HTTP endpoint rather than a callable sibling tool in this toolset, so the agent gets no routing guidance among the identity_* tools.

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