whoami

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly labels the operation as 'Show' (read-only) and specifies the information included, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter status tool. It does not mention potential authentication requirements, but 'current account' implicitly communicates that context.

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 beginning with the core action ('Show the current account') and immediately lists tangible output fields. Every part of the sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 this is a no-parameter, no-side-effect account-status tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to select and invoke it. The output schema is absent, but the description compensates by naming the fields that the tool returns. No critical invocation details are missing for this simple read operation.

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 documentation baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema already covers the empty parameter set. The description's field list provides semantically useful output context instead.

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 the clear verb 'Show' with a specific resource ('current account') and then enumerates the exact fields returned: id, state, email/verified status, quota, domains used, and claimable domains. This clearly distinguishes whoami from sibling tools like list_domains or get_domain, which operate on domain resources rather than account identity.

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 makes it obvious that this tool is for inspecting the current authenticated account's state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to overlap with this account-summary purpose, so sufficient guidance is implied.

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