auth_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the response shape ('flat JSON with user, organization, memberships, and subscription'), which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of saying what happens when unauthenticated (401/redirect), which would be the one remaining behavioral detail.

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, zero filler, with the identity purpose front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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-param read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies both purpose and return structure, and the absent output schema is compensated for. The only gap is the unauthenticated/error behavior, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 guidance.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Get the current authenticated user profile' — and enumerates the included payload (organization memberships, subscription plan). This is unambiguously distinguishable from auth_update_profile, auth_login, and members_list without opening any schema.

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 implied by 'current authenticated user' — an agent can infer this is the identity/who-am-I call — but the description never states when to prefer it over members_list or companies_get, nor any preconditions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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