auth_get_current_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it decodes the Fabric JWT and surfaces identity, tenant, and token expiry. This tells the agent it is a local inspection operation with no write side effects, which is consistent with the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, and the returned information without filler. Every part earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns (identity, tenant, token expiry), how it obtains that (decoding the JWT), and the annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema is present, so describing the shown fields directly is sufficient.

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, so the schema fully covers the input side. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter detail, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource: the current Azure identity, tenant, and token expiry. The 'current' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_list_available_accounts, and the mechanism ('decoding the Fabric JWT') makes it an obvious introspection call.

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 implies when to use it — whenever current Azure identity/tenant/token expiry is needed — but offers no explicit guidance about alternatives such as auth_list_available_accounts, auth_switch_tenant, or auth_clear_token_cache. Given the sibling set, a sentence clarifying what this tool is not for would strengthen it.

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