Get user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added value is the 'currently authenticated user' scope, which is meaningful but thin, and it does not address the confusing 'account' parameter or any auth requirements. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is fair.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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 simple, annotation-rich, zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The only real gap is the unexplained 'account' parameter, which a slightly longer description could have clarified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'account' parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about that parameter, and notably does not reconcile it with the 'currently authenticated user' claim, so no credit above baseline is earned.

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 ('Retrieves the currently authenticated user'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling lookups like get_customer or get_store that fetch arbitrary entities. The scope qualifier 'currently authenticated' is the key differentiator. It stops short of an explicit sibling contrast, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_store, list_accounts, or get_customer. The presence of an optional 'account' parameter is never explained in relation to the 'currently authenticated user' framing, leaving the agent to guess whether this tool can target another account.

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