webmaster_get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The clause 'OAuth stays on the server' adds genuinely new context about credential handling, but no rate limits, error behavior, or caching notes are given — modest value beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the security note second; no filler, no restatement of the tool name. Every clause carries information.

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-parameter getter with an output schema that documents the return value and annotations that cover safety, this is nearly sufficient. The only shortfall is the lack of any routing hint versus related auth tools.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is reported as 100%, leaving no parameter gap to compensate for.

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 and resource: 'Read the OAuth account user identifier'. An agent can tell this is an identity lookup rather than a webmaster site query. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby sibling yandex_auth_status, which likely covers overlapping identity/auth territory.

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 only implied — an agent infers it should call this to learn who the current OAuth user is. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., yandex_auth_status) despite dozens of auth-adjacent siblings.

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