user_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description then adds real behavioral detail about what is aggregated and over what window ('traffic per day and per node for the last N days', 'recent subscription requests with apps, IP pseudonyms'). It stops short of noting the default/limit on N or any payload-size or performance implications of a multi-facet aggregation.

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 dense sentence with the headline value proposition front-loaded and the returned facets enumerated after it. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 multi-facet aggregator with no output schema, the enumeration of returned sections is the right substitute for documenting returns, and identifier selection is covered. It could be complete with one clause on the days window default/maximum or on the fact that no parameter is required.

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 coverage is 57%, but the description compensates by naming six of the seven identifiers (id, username, telegramId, email, shortUuid, pseudonym) and making explicit that any one of them may be used to identify the user, which the schema only implies. It omits the `tag` parameter entirely, leaving one identifier undocumented in the prose.

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+resource ('Everything about one client in one call') and then enumerates exactly which aggregates it returns: subscription/status, HWID devices, per-day and per-node traffic, and recent subscription requests. This clearly distinguishes it from narrow siblings such as get_user_by_id, get_user_hwid_devices, and get_user_subscription_request_history.

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 'in one call' framing implies this is the comprehensive-report choice rather than a targeted lookup, and the identifier list suggests how to address the user. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over the many narrower per-aspect siblings or whether there are prerequisites/cost tradeoffs for the heavier aggregate.

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