Read the signed-in account

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what data is returned and framing the operation as session-based ('account behind the session'), which helps the agent predict behavior without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence says what the tool does, and the second explains why an agent would call it. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 simple zero-required-parameter read tool, the description covers the core needs: what data is returned, why to use it, and how it relates to other tools. There is no output schema, but the description's explicit field list compensates. Minor details about authentication failure or edge cases are not essential here.

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 input schema documents the single optional parameter with a clear description and loose matching guidance. Because schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter detail, and the baseline 3 applies. The tool description itself does not mention the publication parameter, but that is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('the account behind the session'), then enumerates the returned data: name, handle, user id, bio, and owned publications. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling tools, none of which obviously target the signed-in user profile.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to confirm which account is connected, or to obtain the user id that other tools expect. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple profile reader this guidance is sufficient; siblings offer no competing profile tool.

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