Who am I in Forbiz

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds value by enumerating what the call surfaces (identity, capabilities, plan, limits) and by implying the credential-scoped nature of the result. It does not discuss error behavior or auth prerequisites beyond 'current credential', so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, zero waste. The payload inventory comes first and the operational instruction ('Call this first.') is front-loaded and easily scanned.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description carries the burden of describing the return — which it does by listing workspace, identity, capabilities, plan and limits. That is enough for an agent to know what it gets back, though field-level detail is absent.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description appropriately spends its words on the return payload instead of nonexistent inputs.

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 names the specific resource returned — workspace, agent identity, capabilities, plan and limits for the current credential — and the GET /me endpoint anchors it. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling forbiz_agents by scoping to the caller ('current credential'), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Call this first.' gives a clear, actionable ordering instruction that tells the agent when this tool belongs in a sequence. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but the startup framing is unambiguous.

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