identity_get_logged_in_user_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the deprecation status and the role-based access policy (platform operator, org owner/member, whitelisted service account). It still doesn't say what fields 'detailed information' returns.

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 is correctly front-loaded, but the body is bloated with a markdown access-policy table rendered as HTML entities (✔️) and a raw GET path. That formatting is noisy and consumes space that could describe the returned payload.

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 and no parameters, the description should describe the shape of the returned user details; it only says 'detailed information'. Deprecation, replacement endpoint and access rules are covered, so it is adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero other documentation.

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 the schema carries the full burden and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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: fetch the currently logged-in user's detailed information, plus a clear deprecation banner. It does not name the sibling tool (e.g. identity_get_logged_in_user or identity_get_principal_user_profile) that presumably serves the same need, so differentiation from siblings is left implicit.

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 [DEPRECATED] marker and 'Use this API instead: /oidc/userinfo' tell the agent not to rely on this, and the role/access table indicates who may call it. However, the recommended replacement is a raw HTTP path rather than a sibling tool name, so the routing guidance is not directly actionable inside the tool catalog.

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