Who am I

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does explain that the tool verifies the key and returns team/scopes/borrowed-access info. However, it never explicitly states whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or whether a specific authentication state is required to succeed. That makes it adequate but not fully transparent.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Verify') before the details. Every phrase adds meaningful information: team, key prefix, scopes, and borrowed access. No filler words. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain its output. It clearly lists the types of information returned, which is sufficient for an agent to plan subsequent calls (e.g., knowing which scopes are allowed). It does not specify return formatting or error states, but for a whoami-like call this is a minor omission; the core information is there.

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 confirms that. Since no user input is required, the description needs no parameter explanation. Baseline 4 applies because the description is not required to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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 very specific action ('Verify the Goby API key') and enumerates exactly what the agent learns (team, task key prefix, scopes, borrowed access). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-tasks or get-task, which all target different resources or datastore operations.

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 makes the context clear: the tool inspects the current API key context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but because it is the only tool that introspects identity among 19 siblings, an agent can immediately recognize when to use it. The absence of explicit when-not guidance keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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