whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'Microsoft account' specificity but does not disclose additional behavioral details (e.g., failure modes, auth requirements). This meets the minimum bar without extra richness.

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 sentence that says everything needed with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given the tool's trivial complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description is fully adequate. It clearly states what the tool returns and leaves no major gaps.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the parameter burden is minimal. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure, and the schema confirms this. A baseline of 4 applies per the rubric for 0-parameter tools.

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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the signed-in user's Microsoft account profile'), clearly conveying the tool's purpose. It is unique among siblings, as no other tool provides this functionality.

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?

While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the tool's purpose is self-evident and there is no overlapping sibling tool. The context is clear: use this to get the current user's profile, and no other tool serves that role.

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