build_request_to_find_user_and_his_info_by_sec_user_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description offers no information about what the tool does beyond its name—no details about permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it performs read/write operations. This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 extremely brief but not concise in a helpful way—it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. A single sentence that merely repeats the tool name without adding value doesn't earn its place, making this poor structure despite its brevity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or its purpose relative to siblings. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide much more context to be useful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter ('X-Fields') clearly documented as 'An optional fields mask'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is a tautology that merely restates the tool name ('build request to find user and his info by sec user id'), providing no additional clarity about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'build request' means in practice or what 'his info' includes, making the purpose vague and unhelpful for an AI agent.

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. With multiple sibling tools available (like 'find_user_by_sec_user_id_fetch_profile_info_fetch_user_p'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over similar options.

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