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 known. The description adds no behavioral context—it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or what the returned data contains. Since it adds nothing beyond the name, it fails to enrich the annotation-only picture.

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, succinct sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately front-loaded and matches the trivial complexity of the tool. Nothing is over-explained or missing in terms of structure.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what fields the user data contains (e.g., name, email, ID). It only says 'user data' without any elaboration, leaving the agent uncertain about the shape of the response. Given the tool's low complexity, a few more words about the return payload would make it complete.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earn a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly abstains from inventing any.

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 the tool returns data about the authenticated Plaud user ('Dados do usuário Plaud autenticado'). The verb is implied but clear from context, and the resource (user) is distinguished from sibling tools that handle notes, recordings, and transcripts. It is not a tautology and conveys the core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the go-to for retrieving the current user's profile, nor does it compare with sibling tools like plaud_get_notes. For a simple getter it might seem obvious, but explicit context is absent.

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