whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that this validates credentials (implying an auth-failure path) and enumerates exactly what identity data comes back, including the owner timezone and why it matters. It stops short of saying the call itself has no side effects or what an invalid key returns, but the read-only, zero-parameter nature is evident.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action (confirm the key) followed by the payload. Every clause carries information — credential validation, returned fields, and the rationale for the timezone.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-field details need not be fully spelled out, and the description still summarizes them usefully. For a zero-param read tool this is nearly complete; the only missing piece is the recommended call ordering relative to the availability/booking siblings.

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 correctly avoids inventing parameter behavior and instead spends its words on the returned identity fields.

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 concrete verb and resource: it validates the configured AGENTDRAFT_API_KEY and returns the calling agent's identity, priority, scopes, and the owner's timezone. That scope is unmistakable and distinct from every sibling (booking, approval, and availability tools), so an agent can select it without 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?

Usage is only implied: 'so a client can render slots in the owner's zone' hints at a pre-flight/identity check before calling get_availability, but the description never says when to call this versus just calling get_availability, nor that it should be used to verify credentials first. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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